UMASS/AMHERST 


'\.niysm^^r^,^^^^^r,^^^ 


r.iKiAA'^.'' 


I'^^/sA.^' 


W»*«s^sS&^«^ 


A^^O>s^,^A 


■On^A 


^'^A-/^A_     A, 


W^^cC 


^nAn.^A^;^^A/^'^:^. 


:yv¥^^^'' 


a*.'2'^d^A.A, 


V':^':%/^M;i^i^;ji'^^^'^^ 


'zfsm^A^wMr^'wnM 


^v-CC-'  /   "^  ' 


LIBRARY 


MASSACHUSETTS 

AGRICULTURAL 

COLLEGE 


Source  v^X3i 


1755 
h6 


This  book   may  be  kept  out 

TWO      WEEKS 

only,  and  is  subject  to  a  fine  of  riV-E 
CENTS  a  day  thereafter.  It  will  be  due  on 
the  day  indicated  below. 

UlC  4  1894 

FEB  3    1897 

FEB  17  1897 
FEB  18   1899 

IV.'.R  S    1899 


DATE   DUE                            1 

(i^^^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Boston  Library  Consortium  IVIember  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/Gommentsoncurren1921horr 


THE  TRIBUNE  MONTHLY. 


Ck'.JLA         (    f  <"<     V... 


'  OL.  III. 


JULY,    1891. 


NO.    7. 


/ 


ISSiS  OF  Ai  OFF  MR 


EX-CONGRESSMAN  HORR'S  COMMENTS 

ON 

CURRENT  QUESTIONS. 


SILVER  -THE  TABIFP— TIN  PUTES^THE 

— RECIPROCITl 


LIBRARY   OF  TRIBUNE  EXTRAS. 


$2  a  Year.      Single  Copies,  25  Cents. 


THE  TEIBUNE  ASSOCIATION, 

NEW-YOKK. 


Hn 


BIG  ISSUES  OF  AN  OFF  YEAR. 


SILVER— THE    TARIFF— TIN    PLATES— THE    COMMERCIAL 
MARIJSfE-RECIP  It  O  CITY. 


SHORT  TALKS  WITH  VOTERS. 


THE     WOliST    OF    MUSOPOLIES. 

With  400  votes  against  300  the  Ohio  Demo- 
cratic Convention  adopted  a  free-coinage  plat- 
form. The  opiwsition  was  not  weak  in  ai-gu- 
ment  nor  uncertain  of  pm-pose,  and  yet  when 
outvoted  it  accepted  the  platform  which  30  0 
delegates  held  dangerous  to  the  country  and  un- 
just to  its  millions  of  working  people.  It  was 
well  said  by  one  speaker  that  the  voters  of 
Ohio  had  no  occasion  to  sacrifice  their  own 
prosperity  in  order  to  emich  the  few  million- 
aire mine-owners  of  silver  States.  Neverthe- 
less, the  millionaires  had  their  way,  and  under 
pi-etence  of  assailing  monopolies  they  committed 
the  Democrats  of  Ohio  to  support  the  worst  and 
most  hurtful  of  all  monopolies.  This  same 
Democratic  Convention  denounced  without 
measure  the  new  Protective  Tariff,  on  the 
ground  that  it  oppressed  the  people  for  the 
benefit  of  capitalists  engaged  in  favored  indus- 
tries. But  no  other  industry  ever  has  been 
petted  and  favored  as  the  mining  of  silver  would 
be  if  the  policy  of  the  Oliio  Democrats  should 
prevail. 

The  convention  thinks  it  an  outrage  that  a 
duty  is  placed  on  raw  wool  and  on  tin  plates. 
But  suppose  Congress  had  provided  that  every 
pound  of  wool  produced  in.  the  country  should 
be  purchased  by  the  Grovernment  at  a  price 
nearly  30  cents  per  pound  above  its  market 
value,  and  should  be  stored  in  public  ware- 
houses, and  that  legal-tender  notes  should  be 
given  to  the  producers  which  all  other  citizens 
should  be  compelled  by  law  to  accept  in  full 
satisfaction  of  all  debts  or  claims.  That  would 
be  indeed  an  outrageous  burden,  and  yet  it  is 
f  ^ecisely  what  the  Democrats  of  Ohio  propose  to 


do  for  the  benefit  of  the  millionaire  mine-own- 
ei-s,  while  they  bitterly  oppose  any  attempt  to 
secure  a  better  market  for  the  products  of 
5,000.000  farms. 

Supiwse  Congress  bad  enacted  that  every 
povmd  of  tin  plates  produced  in  this  country 
should  be  purchased  by  Government,  and  in 
addition  all  the  tin  plates  that  any  foreigners 
might  see  fit  to  send  hither,  and  that  legal- 
tender  notes  should  be  given  for  the  entire 
quantity  at  such  a  rate  that  instead  of  S3  0,- 
000,000  it  should  cost  over  §40,000,000. 
Would  there  not  be  strong  reason  for  denounc- 
ing such  a  plunder  of  the  many  for  the  benefit 
of  the  few  ?  But  the  same  Democratic  Con- 
vention which  rants  and  raves  about  the  duty 
on  tin  plates  solemnly  resolves  that  Govern- 
ment must  pay  about  one-third  more  than  the 
market  price  for  ail  the  silver  that  may  be 
delivered  to  it,  so  that  the  yearly  product  of 
American  mines,  which  is  now  worth  about 
$51,000,000  in  mai'ket  value,  shall  be  sold  to 
the  Government  for  §  7  2 , 0  0  0 , 0  0  0  or  more.  The 
new  tariff  has  not  a  single  provision  T^hich 
would  take  from  the  people  half  as  much  money 
for  any  purpose  whatever  as,  the  Free-Coinage 
bill  would  take  from  them  for  the  benefit  of  the 
few  o^vn.ers  of  silver  mines... 

The  wool  duty,  according  to  the  declaration 
of  the  candidate  nominated  for  Governor  by 
the  Democrats  of  Ohio,  has  made  wool  "elieaper 
than  it  was  before.  If  he  were  less  of  a 
demagogue  and  more  of  a  student,  he  would 
probably  be  aware  that  woollen  goods  cost  no 
more  now  than  they  did  before  the  new  tariff 
was  enacted,  and  that  not  only  "because  the  for- 
eign importers  have  reduced  the  cost  of  goods  as 
much  as  the  new  tariff  added  to  the  duty,  but 
also  because  the  American  manufacturers  them- 
selves sell  at  prices  as  low  or  lower  than  were 


BIG    ISSUES    OF  »AN    OFF    YEAE. 


charged  six  months  ago.  The  pretence  that 
the  people  are  burdenecl  is  simply  false  and 
fraudulent,  but  if  it  were  true,  all  the  loss  that 
could  be  imposed  upon  them  by  duties  on  wool- 
len goods  would  be  insignificant,  compared  ^-cith 
the  direct  loss  alone  ^-s-hich  the  free  coinage  of 
sil\'er  would  involve.  Pretending  to  oppose 
monopolies  and  legislation  for  the  benefit  of  in- 
dividuals, the  Democrats  of  Ohio  have  com- 
mitted themselves  to  the  worst  and  most  mis- 
chievous of  all  forms  of  legislation  against  the 
public  welfare  and  for  the  benefit  of  a  small 
class  of  citizens. 


WAGES  AND  LIVING. 
The  tariff  question  turns  at  last  mainly  upon 
the  condition  of  the  working  people.  One  would 
suppose  it  an  easy  matter  to  show,  as  the  ex- 
perience of  almost  every  middle-aged  man  tells 
him,  that  there  has  been  a  great  improvement 
during  the  last  thirty  years  in  this  respect. 
But  memories  are  treacherous.  The  habits  of 
to-day  have  ton  often  blotted  out  altogether 
recollections  of  the  experiences  of  other  years. 
The  man  who  lives  to-day  in  comfort,  earning 
good  wages  as  a  mechanic  or  artisan,  often 
fails  to  remember  what  his  actual  circumstances 
were  when  he  began  active  life,  or  if  he  remem- 
bers, attributes  the  difference  rather  to  his  own 
rise  in  the  world  than  to  any  change  in  the 
general  condition  of  the  wage-earner. 

Hence  it  is  that  detailed  information  on  this 
point  always  comes  to  the  mind  as  a  sort  of 
revelation,  surprising  and  to  many  scarcely 
credible.  There  are  not  a  few  who  have  this 
Eeeling,  as  they  peruse  the  statements  made  in 
a  recent  article  by  "The  Boston  Commercial 
Bulletin  ''  on  the  condition  of  the  working  peo- 
ple half  a  century  ago.  It  first  quotes  a  letter 
from  an  old  cotton-mill  superintendent : 

Tlie  hours  of  work  were  then  from  5  a.  m.  to  7  or 
7 :30  p.  HI.,  with  30  minutes  for  breakfast  and  i'y 
minutes  for  dinner.  Women  to  a  greater  extent  than 
now  were  employed ;  cMldren  of  tender  years  were 
niamerous  in  the  mills.  The  pay  of  !he  ordinary  day 
laborer  was  75  cents,  and  spinners  on  hand  miiles 
rarely  averaged  $1  for  fourteen  hour?  "f  toil.  'Hie 
worlc  of  the  wea'  ers  was  exacting  ami  tiresome  in  tlie 
extreme,  and  66  2-3  cents  per  day  was  above  tlie 
average  pay. 

In  comparison  wVrh  these  figures  "The  Com- 
mercial Bulletin"  says  : 

The  compensation  of  a  wage- worker  shows  a  marked 
Increase.  The  women  of  the  weaveroom  now  average 
$8  per  week  of  sixty  hours,  and  the  men  $10  a  week, 
while  mule  spinners  average  from  $11  to  $12.  The 
wages  of  masons,  carpenters,  painters  and  other  out- 


door laborers  have  doubled  within  the  last  fifty  years, 
and  tlieir  hours  of  labor  materiaUr  lessened. 

Thus  it  is  clear  that  the  wage-earner  has  a 
far  greater  purchasing  po^^■er  than  he  had  in 
former  times.  The  question  need  not  here  be 
discussed  whether  wages  are  as  high,  even  now, 
as  they  ought  to  be,  or  whether  hours  of  labor 
ought  to  be  still  further  reduced.  The  ques- 
tion is  whether  the  conditions  in  this  counti-y 
have  been  such  as  to  benefit  the  wage-earners, 
and  as  resjjects  wages  received  the  statements 
given  by  the  paper  above  quoted  correspond 
with  all  other  evidence  attainable.  But  as  to 
the  mode  of  living  in  working  families  the  same 
joiunal  says  : 

The  meat  brought  on  to  tlie  table  of  the  wage-worker 
of  that  day  was  pork.  Coffee,  tea,  milk  and  sugar 
were  used  sparingly,  and  molasses  was  almost  In- 
variably used  for  sweetening.  Satinet  for  winter  wear 
and  nankeen  for  summer  use  were  the  garments  of  men 
and  boys  alike.  Cowhide  covered  the  feet  of  the  boys 
in  \vint6r.  During  the  other  montlis  tliey  went  bare- 
foot. Their  winter  garments  included  neitlier  under- 
shirts nor  overcoats,  but  the  woollen  comforters  served 
instead.  Calico  was  the  ordinary  dress  for  women,  and 
but  few  varied  tlierefrom  even  on  Sunday.  In  the 
tenements  stoves  were  unltno'wn,  carpets  were  beyond 
the  occupant's  means,  and  the  walls  were  unadorned 
with  paper  or  pictures.  Chairs  were  of  wood  only. 
The  featlier  bed  was  usually  for  the  comfort  of  the 
parents,  and  the  younger  members  slept  on  straw. 
One  room  served  for  their  sitting-room,  dining-room  and 
Idtchen,  and  the  garret  was  rarely  sepai'ated  by  a 
pai'tition.  The  rug  before  each  bed  was  of  braided 
wooUen  rags.  Tliese  operatives,  it  mnst  be  remem- 
bered, were  native  American  men  and  women  wlio  came 
from  country  towns. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  anything  by 
way  of  strengthening  the  contrast  which  these 
statements  so  forcibly  make.  He  who  has  vis- 
ited any  of  the  manufacturing  towns  of  New- 
England,  though  it  be  for  only  a  day,  is  well 
aware  that  the  ordinary  condition  of  the  work- 
ing people  is  now  far  from  that  described  so 
graphically  in  the  foi-egoing  exti'act.  The  jour- 
nal from  which  these  statements  are  quoted  says 
with  truth  : 

The  operative's  house,  with  its  modern  conveniences, 
untaown  to  tlie  manor  house  of  the  first  half  of  the 
century,  and  alike  productive  of  health  and  comfort, 
though  of  much  higher  rental,  demands  no  greater  per- 
centage of  Ms  earnings  than  did  that  of  an  earlier  day. 
In  all  else  the  cost  of  living  has  not  materially  in- 
creased, manufactured  goods  consumed  In  the  families 
being  materially  lower  in  price.  Whatever  diilerence 
there  is  in  some  of  the  ll-sring  expenses  is  accounted  for 
by  the  improved  quality  of  goods  purchased.  The  lux- 
uries of  a  few  years  ago  are  the  necessaries  of  to-day. 

It  is  not  intended  to  imply  that  the  whole 
change,  wonderful  as  it  has  been,  is  due  to  any 
single  cause.  But  no  one  who  investigates  with 
care  can  fail  to  be  convinced  that  the  large  pro- 
portion of  it  is  due  to  that  American  policy 
which  has  defended  the  working  people  of  this 
country  against  direct  competition  with  the 
laborers  of  other  lands.  It  has  enabled  them 
to  ask  and  employei-e  to  pay  a  much  higher  rate 
of  wages  for  labor,  and  at  the  same  time  has 


15ia    ISSUJKS    ON    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


placed  within  theii-  re.ith  substantially  all  the 
necessaries  of  life  at  a  much  lower  cost  than 
they  formo!ly  paid.  It  is  for  this  reatson  that 
the  Intelligent  and  thrifty  workingnien  of  nia- 
ture  age  arc  almcjst  without  6xc<,'ption  hearty 
believers  in  the  American  policy  of  Protection, 
and  ready  to  do  their  utmost  to  prevent  its  over- 
throw. 

SQUARfyi-r     THE     CIRCLE. 

The  Democratic  party  is  rallying  around  the 
old  standard  of  Free  Ti-ade.  Last  year  tliere 
was  only  one  leader  of  the  pai-ty  in  Ohio  who 
ventured  to  proclaim  himself  a  Free  Tiader 
without  equivocation  and  reserve.  This  year 
the  Sbite  Convention  condemns  Protection  as  an 
iniquitous  policy,  favors  "  a  tariff  levied  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  producing  a  revenue  sufficient 
to  defray  the  legitimate  expenses  of  the  Gov- 
ernment economically  administered,"  and  calls 
for  a  graded  income  tax.  A  tariff  for  revenue 
only  was  what  the  Democratic  National  plat- 
form demanded  in  1876  and  1880.  This  is 
what  the  Ohio  Demoei-ats  now  want,  but  being 
mindful  of  the  fact  that  England  with  its  reve- 
nue tariff'  is  compelled  to  tax  incomes,  it  adopts 
that  feature  of  the  Free-Trade  system.  By  de- 
manding the  imposition  of  the  income  tax,  they 
emphasize  in  the  most  practical  way  their  ab- 
solute conversion  to  Free  Trade.  In  fact,  they 
virtually  revive  the  tariff  plank  of  the  Demo- 
cratic National  Conventions  in  1856  and  1860, 
which  declared  : 

The  time  lias  come  for  the  people  of  the  United  Slates 
to  declare  themselves  in  favor  of  free  seas  and  progres- 
sive free  trade  throughout  the  world,  and  by  solemn 
manifestations  to  place  their  moral  Influence  at  the  side 
of  their  successful  example. 

A  revenue  tariff'  and  taxation  of  incomes  not 
only  embodies  the  free-ti-ade  ideas  of  England, 
but  also  revives  the  revenue  system  of  the 
Confederate  States  when  they  were  the  Solid 
South  in  rebellion.  The  secessionists  were  Free 
Ti-adere.  In  the  constitution  adopted  by  the 
Confederate  States  the  powers  conferred  upon 
Congress  excluded  Protection.  Free  Trade  was 
made  the  foundation  of  the  Confederacy  as 
shown  by  the  following  extract  from  the  defini- 
tion of  the  legislative  powers  : 

To  lay  a.Tid  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts  and  excises 
for  revenue  necessary  to  pay  the  debts,  provide  for  the 
common  defence,  and  carry  on  the  government  of  the 
Confederate  States ;  but  no  bounties  shall  be  granted 
from  file  Treasuiy ;  nor  shall  any  duties  or  taxes  on 
importations  from  foreign  nations  be  laid  to  promote  or 
foster  any  branch  of  industiT  ;  and  all  duties,  imposts 
and  excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  Con- 
federate States.— (Confederate   Constitution.) 

The  Ohio  Democrats  have  thus  squared  the 
oii'cle  of  their  historic  past.  By  declaring  them- 
selves to  be  opposed  to  the  "iniquitous"  policy 
of  Protection  and  to  be  in  favor  of  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only  and  of  the  imposition  of  income 
taxes,  they  return  bag  and  baggage  to  the 
Free-Trade  lines  of  the  Buchanan,  Bieckinridge 


and  Douglas  conventions,  and  support  with  the 
moral  influence  and  example  the  traditions  of 
the  Confederate  Congress.  Our  friends  in  Ohio 
have  the  advantage  of  knowing  exactly  where 
the  enemy  is  encamped. 


lyCOAfE-TJXATIOy    AND    FREF.     TRADE. 

"The  Sun,"  in  that  spirit  of  courageous  in- 
dependence which  is  characteristic  of  that  well- 
conducted  Democratic  journal,  condemns  the 
inconsistency  of  its  party  in  Ohio  in  opiw&ing 
"  all  class  legislation"  and  favoring  at  the  same 
time  a  graded  income  tax.  It  describes  an  in- 
come tax  as  class  legislation  of  the  woitit  sorb, 
since  that  sys-tem  divides  the  community  into 
the  honest  and  the  dishonest,  and  imposes  at 
once  a  tariff  on  integrity  and  a  bounty  on 
perjury.  It  shows  that  in  1870,  when  the  ta^s 
was  still  in  ft  roe  as  a  war  measure,  it  was  paid 
by  one  adult  male  out  of  every  thirty.  That 
"  The  Sun"  'oonsidei-s  a  complete  demonstration 
of  its  character  as  class  legislation.  The  de- 
mand of  the  Ohio  Denioci-ats  for  a  graded  or 
unequal  income  tax  it  denounces  as  a  clamor 
for  "  a  final  outrage  in  the  way  of  class  legisla- 
tion," since  it  "  would  divide  the  free  and  equal 
citizens  of  the  United  States  into  various 
classes  :  one  class  paying  nothing,  another  class 
paying  5  per  cent,  another  paying  10  per  cent, 
another  paying  into  the  Tieasuiy  half  of  their 
incomes,  and  so  on  up  to  the  class  which  suffers 
an  absolute  confiscation  of  the  earnings  of  its 
skill,  intelligence,  energy  and  accumulated 
.'savings." 

This  is  all  true  and  cannot  Tse  controverted. 
In  the  attempt  to  pull  the  wool  over  the  eyes 
of  the  Farmers'  Alliance  fanatics  the  Ohio  Dem- 
ocrats have  stultified  themselves  and  condemned 
themselves  out  of  their  own  mouths.  Not  oilly 
have'  they  committed  themselves  to  class  legis- 
lation on  a  tremendous  scale,  but  they  have 
also  invited  unpopularity  by  demanding  a  re- 
vival of  the  most  odious  methods  of  war  taxa- 
tion—methods which,  as  "The  Sun"  justly  re- 
marks, cannot  be  enforced'  without  the  estab- 
lishment of  "  a  system  of  inquisition  and  espion- 
age repugnant  to  American  ideas  and  abhorrent 
to  the  free  citizen." 

The  Ohio  Democxate,  however,  while  con- 
victed of  folly  in  opposing  and  favoring  class 
legislation  in  the  same  breath,  are  consistent 
from  another  point  of  view.  They  have  re- 
corded their  rancorous  hostility,  not  to  the  Mc- 
K.inley  Act  alone,  but  to  the  whole  policy  of 
Protection.  They  want  a  tariff  for  revenue 
only,  and  as  little  of  that  as  possible  :  and  fore- 
seeing that  the  expenditiu-es  for  National  ad- 
ministration and  for  payment  of  interest  on  the 
war  debt  must  be  met  in  some  way,  they  fall 
back  upon  the  English  plan  of  taxing  incomes 
with  communistic  modifications.  What  they 
want  is  Free  Trtde,  and  they  aie  logical  enough 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAft. 


to  couple  with,  it  a  system  of  filling  the  National 
exchequer  grounded  upon  English  methods. 
The  Republicans  throughout  the  country  are 
under  pressing  obligations  to  the  Ohio  Demo- 
crats. National  issues  were  defined  at  Cleve- 
land in  the  sharpest  possible  way. 

TBE    OCEAN  MAIL    ACT. 

The  Postmastei'-Generars  proposals  for  ocean 
mail  seryice  will  inevitably  be  received  with 
coolness  and  uncertainty  by  the  steamship- com- 
panies and  vessel-owners  now  in  the  carrying 
trade  under  the  American  flag.  These  interests 
were  disappointed  by  the  failure  of  the  Naviga- 
tion Bounty  bUl,  and  they  have  not  yet  adapted 
themselves  to  the  requirements  of  the  Ocean 
Mail  Service  Act.  Of  the  two  measures,  the 
first  offered  immediate  relief  to  the  shipping 
interests,  which  had  been  suffering  from  several 
decades  of  National  neglect  and  from  the  active 
competition  of  foreign  subsidized  lines,  while 
the  second  was  a  creative  measure  designed  to 
increase  the  efficiency  of  the  American  steam- 
ship service  already  in  existence  and  to  promote 
the  establishment  of  new  lines.  If  the  fir_st 
measure  had  been  adopted  there  would  have 
been  a  quick  and  enthusiastic  resi>onse  from  all 
the  corporations  now  struggling  for  existence 
against  untoward  conditions.  The  act  which 
was  passed  will  compel  them  to  make  large  in- 
vestments of  capital  in  the  building  of  new  ships 
before  they  can  derive  substantial  benefits  from 
it.  It  may  also  subject  them  to  competition 
from  new  interests  to  be  created  by  it.  It  is 
less  of  a  relief  measure,  but  offers  encourage- 
ment for  active  measures  on  their  part  for  im- 
proving their  service.  The  letter  published  on 
another  page  brings  out  these  points  with  lucid- 
ity and  force. 

It  will  be  natural  under  these  circumstances 
for  the  American  lines  forming  a  remnant  of  a 
once-powerful  commercial  marine  to  be  exceed- 
ingly cautious  and  deliberate  before  committing 
themselves  to  the  new  policy,  and  earnestly 
striving  to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunities 
opened  to  them.  There  are  some  considera- 
tions, however,  which  ought  to  have  great 
weight  in  influencing  their  decisions  after  their 
managers  have  had  sufficient  leisure  for  reflect- 
ing upon  the  situation.  The  measure  which 
their  representatives  and  the  shipping  leagues 
advocated  was  based  lupon  the  system  of  navi- 
gation bounties  adopted  by  France  and  Italy. 
While  that  policy  has  been  useful  in  developing 
the  commercial  marine  of  each  of  those  coim- 
tries,  the  results  have  been  somewhat  disap- 
pointing, and  have  excited  abroad  some  contro- 
versy respecting  the  practical  efficiency  of  the 
methods  adopted.  Indeed,  it  will  be  apparent 
to  any'  one  who  closely  studies  the  commercial 
statistics  of  those  nations  that  more  beneficial 
tesults  have   accompanied   the   direct  payment 


of  steamship  subsidies  when  that  system  has 
continued  ■w'ithout  reference  to  the  bounties. 
The  German  and  English  Governments  are  em- 
ploying the  latter  system  to  a  very  large  ex- 
tent, and  it  may  be  said  to  be  the  preferred 
method  of  promoting  the  development  of  com- 
merce now  in  operation  in  maritime  Europe. 
The  new  Shipping  Aot  is  grounded  upon  the 
best  and  most  satisfactory  experience  of  com- 
peting nations.  It  is,  therefore,  less  open  to 
criticism  in  this  country  from  political  op]>o- 
nents  than  the  Bounty  bill  would  have  been, 
and  is  more  likely  to  remain  in  force  for  a 
long  period. 

This  inherent  probability  of  permanence  is 
an  element  to  be  considered  by  shipping  in- 
terests seeking  to  enlarge  their  investments  and 
to  inoi'ease  their  business.  They  require  a  rea- 
sonable degree  of  assurance  that  the  new  policy 
is  not  a  tentative  measure  liable  to  be  modified 
and  coimteracted  by  hostile  legislation.  The 
payment  of  navigation  bounties  was  a  French 
and  Italian  expedient,  not  sanctioned  by  Ameri- 
can practice.  The  policy  of  converting  the  mail 
service  into  an  agency  for  the  development  of 
shipping  interests  was  adopted  under  Demo- 
cratic Administrations  before  the  Civil  War,  and 
has  been  sanctioned  by  maritime  Europe.  The 
new  act  is  grounded  upon  principles  which  in- 
sure its  permanency  and  thereby  invite  the 
confidence  of  investors.  The  most  rigorous 
economist  cannot  find  fault  wth  it,  for  it  is 
evident  that  it  will  cost  less  for  the  Govern- 
ment to  create  an  auxiliary  navy  of  high  speed 
by  paying  well  for  mail  transportation  than  it 
will  to  continue  indefinitely  the  construction  of 
fast  cruisers  for  the  navy.  The  new  act,  while 
it  was  weakened  by  the  amendments  offered  to 
it  in  the  House,  remains  a  logical  and  creative 
measure,  and  will  yield  in  due  time  a  large  in- 
crease of  transportation  facilities  under  the 
American  flag. 


OCEAN  MAIL  PliOPOSALS. 
The  Postmaster-General's  circular  inviting 
bids  for  ocean  mail  service  marks  the  beginning 
of  a  new  policy  which  aims  to  restoi'e  the  Ameri- 
can flag  to  the  seas.  The  details  of  the  recent 
act  passed  by  Congress  have  been  exhaustively 
considered,  and  comprehensive  action  has  been 
taken  to  carry  out  the  intent  of  the  legislation. 
The  Postmaster-General  has  had  a  most  diffi- 
cult duty  to  discharge,  and  he  has  succeeded  ad- 
mirably in  opening  up  the  whole  subject  on 
such  broad  lines  as  to  test  the  practical  value 
of  the  act.  The  circular  may  be  regarded  as 
tentative  in  its  effects.  It  is  designed  to  call 
in  proposals  for  a  fast  ocean  mail  service  in 
American  bottoms  from  six  Atlantic,  four  Gulf 
and  three  Pacific  ports,  and  to  improve  postal 
communications  with  Europe,  South  America, 
the  West  Indies,  Central  America,  Australia, 
China   and   Japan.        The   I'ostmaster-General 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


T 


has  acted  uiwn  the  principle  that  the  first  work 
to  be  accomplished  is  to  ascertain  practically 
what  can  be  done  under  the  provisions  of  the 
act.  By  inviting  proposals  for  mail  service  in 
the  broade-st  possible  way  he  appeals  strongly 
to  American  enterprLse  and  capital  to  take  ad- 
vantaare  of  the  new  law  and  to  supply  the  Na- 
tion with  an  iinpi-oved  and  largely  developed 
commercial  marine  on  the  high  seas. 

We  have  described  this  circular  as  the  be- 
ginning of  a  new  policy.  It  would  have  been 
more  accm-ate  to  term  it  a  'reversion  to  the  en- 
lightened Demociatic  policy  which  prevailed  be- 
ijore  tlie  Civil  ^Var— that  of  making  the  mail 
service  a  medium  for  the  development  of  ship- 
ping interests.  In  1855  under  a  Democratic  Ad- 
ministration the  amount  paid  for  mail  service  to 
vessels  sailing  under  the  American  flag  wiis 
$1,936,715,  and  there  was  not  a  year  of  that 
decade  of  Democratic  Congresses  when  con- 
siderably more  than  §1,000,000  was  not  ex- 
pended for  that  purpose— often  nearer  $2,000,- 
000  than  ••?1, 000,000.  When  Mr.  Vilas  took 
it  upon  himself  to  veto  an  act  of  Congi-ess 
passed  for  the  relief  of  shipping  interests,  and 
to  cut  do\\n  the  amount  paid  to  American  ves- 
sels for  mail  service  to  the  beggarly  simi  of 
$43,319,  he  vias  not  acting  as  an  old-time 
Democrat.  The  Republican  policy  of  convert- 
ing the  postal  service  into  an  active  agency 
for  promoting  the  development  of  the  American 
carrying  trade  is  one  nhich  has  been  repeatedly 
sanctioned  in  the  past  by  Democratic  Congiesscs. 
It  is  one  that  can  heartily  be  supported  by  all 
Americans  on  broad,  patriotic  groimds. 

The  United  States  during  the  last  two  years 
has  been  asserting  its  dignity  as  a  continental 
and  maritime  I'ower.  An  international  con- 
ference has  been  held  at  Washington  in  order 
to  facilitate  continental  exchanges  of  produce 
and  manufactures.  A  second  conference  at- 
tended by  representatives  of  the  maritime 
Powers  has  efl'ected  in  the  same  capital  a  re- 
vision of  the  rules  of  the  sea.  The  Government 
is  now  offering  in  the  Eeciprocity  policy  a  large 
-measure  of  unrestricted  trade  to  the  Southern 
republics  on  the  basis  of  equitable  exchange. 
Another  year  will  v\itness  the  dedication  of  the 
World's  Fair  held  in  commemoration  of  the 
-greatest  maritime  exploit  in  history  and  the 
large-st  exhibit  of  the  industries  and  products 
of  the  American  Continent  that  has  ever  been 
collected.  All  these  great  transactions  have 
required  an  immediate  and  radical  change  of 
poUoy  respecting  the  commercial  marine.  That 
must  first  be  restored,  and  then  the  promi.se  of 
two  brilliant  years  of  American  diplomacy  and 
of  the  development  of  the  export  trade  as  the 
result  of  Reciprocity  conventions,  the  World's 
Fair,  and  of  a  vast  increase  of  National  pres- 
tige, will  be  fulfilled.  President  Harrison  and 
the  Postmaster-General  are  in  hearty  sympathy 
with  the  shipping  legislation  of  the  last  Con- 


gress, and  are  making  an  earnest  and  broad- 
minded  effort  to  carry  out  an  enlightened  pol- 
icy. The  appeal  made  to  old-time  mercantile 
energy  and  maritime  pride  ought  not  to  be 
neglected. 

GOrEKNuR    CAMPBELL'S    ERROR. 

The  speecii  of  Governor  Campbell,  of  Ohio, 
upon  his  renomination  was  intended  to  make 
the  taiiif  the  leading  question  of  the  cam- 
paign. State  issues  he  was  willing  to  consider 
subordinate  and  comparatively  unimportant,  as 
he  well  might.  The  silver  question  he  was 
\\illing  to  ignoie,  his  followers  being  almost 
equally  divided  thereon.  But  he  imagined  that 
the  taj'ift'  question  was  one  on  which  his  sup- 
porters would  be  united  and  zealous. 

It  is  a  pity  that  Governor  Campbell  did  not 
inform  himself  as  to  the  facts  before  he  ventured 
into  speech.  If  he  had  done  so,  he  would  not 
have  been  so  ready  to  charge  that  the  tariff 
had  burdened  and  plundered  the  people.  It 
ought  to  have  occurred  to  him  that,  if  he  had 
any  excuse  for  saying  that  wool  had  been  cheap- 
er since  the  new  tariff  was  enacted  than  be- 
fore, there  had  been  no  additional  biuden  im- 
posed by  that  duty,  and  the  circumstances  as 
to  other  i)roducts  might  have  been  substantially 
the  same.  But  it  pleases  some  men  to  speak 
first  and  look  into  facts  afterward.  In  that 
way,  no  doubt,  he  came  to  make  some  assertions 
about  the  tariff  which  have  no  sort  of  relation 
to  the  facts.  It  is  not  true  that  imixjrted  prod- 
ucts generally  have  been  rendered  moi*  costly 
by  the  new  duties.  On  the  contrary,  though 
most  articles  have  not  been  changed  in  price 
at  all,  it  will  piobably  astonish  the  Governor 
to  find  that  nine-tenths  of  those  which  have  ia 
any  way  altered  in  price  have  declined.  Ho 
will  search  a  long  while,  and  probably  without 
success  even  then,  if  he  tries  to  discover  any 
class  of  ai'ticles  which  command  a  higher  price 
than  a  year  ago.  Some  of  the  reasons  he  may 
not  be  able  to  comprehend,  and  others  he  will 
obstinately  refuse  to  admit,  but  it  may  be  profit- 
able to  mention  a  few  of  them,  nevertheless. 

This  country  has  been  the  most  imjxjrtant 
and  profitable  customer  of  foreign  producers  in 
many  branches  of  industry.  When  it  was  pro- 
posed by  means  of  higher  duties  to  stop  undue 
dependence  upon  foreign  production,  the  manu- 
facturers abroad  saw  that  they  Tvere  obliged  to 
give  up  the  American  market,  or  to  sacrifice  the 
whole  or  a  part  of  their  profits.  In  scores  of 
oases  already  known  they  have  reduced  their 
selling  price  fully  as  much  as  the  addition  to 
the  duties,  and  are  now  delivering  goods  at 
exactly  the  same  prices  duty  paid  that  they 
charged  before  the  new  tariff  went  into  effect. 
This  is  the  explanation  of  increased  or  un- 
changed imports  of  important  classes  of  goods 
in  spite  of  the  higher  duties  now  imposed.  In 
some  products  the  foreign  manufacturers  have 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


been  helped  by  a  remarkable  decline  in  cost  of 
raw  materials.  But  this  decline  has  not  been 
accidental.  A  material  part  of  the  whole  world's 
supply  had  been  taken'  for  many  years  to  meet 
the  American  demand.  The  new  duties  threat- 
ened to  cut  off  that  demand.  The  foreign  man- 
ufacturers thereupon  named  the  figures  which 
they  could  aff-ard  to  pay  for  the  materials,  in 
view  of  the  new  duties,  and  producers  found 
themselves  forced  to  take  those  prices  or  to  lose 
a  great  part  of  their  market.  It  is  a  literal  fact 
that  the  thi'eatened  withdrawal  of  American 
custom  has  put  down  prices  of  some  important 
products  all  over  the  Western  World. 

Governor  Campbell  had  better  look  into  these 
things  before  he  talks  again.  He  will  find  that 
in  a  really  astonishing  number  of  cases  foreign- 
ers have  been  obliged  to  pay  the  whole  of  the 
new  duties  imposed  by  the  McKinley  Tariff 
bill  for  the  privilege  of  selling  at  all  in  the 
American  market.  It  will  puzzle  him  to  show 
that  these  duties  have  in  any  ^vay  or  to  any  ex- 
tent proved  a  burden  to  American  consumers. 


THE    LEAGUE    AT    WORK. 

AVith  Mr.  Clarkson's  return  the  active  cam- 
paign of  the  National  League  will  begin.  Its 
opportunities  are  great  and  manifest.  The  im- 
portant campaigns  this  fall  happen  to  be  in 
those  States  where  the  League  is  strong  al- 
ready, and  where  it  has  given  proof  of  its  utility 
in  awakening  public  interest  and  in  organizing 
its  members  for  hard  work.  In  New- York, 
Ohio  and  Iowa  especially,  where  the  results  of 
the  elections  will  be  highly  significant,  it  pos- 
sesses a  great  army  of  energetic  workers  who 
only  need  to  be  infused  with  the  zeal  which 
distinguishes  its  president.  Mr.  Clarkson  suc- 
ceeds in  nothing  more  quickly  and  certainly 
than  in  inspiring  others  with  his  own  courage 
and  force.  His  knowledge  of  the  situation  in 
the  West  wU  enable  him  to  render  the  League 
with  Tts  peculiar  methods  of  work  highly  ef- 
fectual in  counteracting  the  influence  of  the 
Farmers'  Alliance.  Nothing  in  the  history  of  the 
development  of  that  organization  offers  proof 
that  its  strength  is  drawn  from  the  impossible 
plans  which  ambitious  politicians  have  per- 
suaded it  to  assume-  Primarily  it  is  the  result 
of  the  social  instinct.  Undoubtedly,  the  farm- 
ers generally  have  felt  that  their  profits  were 
tower  than  they  ought  to  be,  and  have  been 
disposed  to  listen  with  an  inclining  ear  to  any 
scheme  that  promised  higher  values  and  freer 
money.  But  unlimited  coinage  and  the  Sub- 
Treasury  scheme  are  not  the  cause  of  their 
present  association.  They  are  rather  a  result 
of  it.  The  farmers  organized  largely  from  class 
sympathy  and  under  a  social  compact  for  self- 
defence  against  combinations  intended  to  ad- 
vance the  prices  of  Tnachinery,  freights  and 
other  necessities,   and  to   depress  the  price  of 


fruits  and  grain.  Their  political  movement 
was  a  later  undertaking  into  which  they  were 
borne  and  driven  by  demagogues. 

Although  the  last  elections  wei'e  far  from 
showing  that  the  average  farmer  has  identified 
himself  with  any  of  the  wild  schemes  ofBcially 
advocated  by  the  Alliance,  they  did  show  that 
the  organization  was  dangerously  strong  in  half 
a  dozen  States  whose  continued  fldelitj'  to  Ee^ 
publican  policies  is  mnst  important.  The  Re- 
publican League  better  than  any  available  in- 
fluence is  competent  to  draw  the  farmere  of 
Iowa,  Minnesota,  Kansas  and  Ohio  back  into- 
their  relations  \vith  the  Republican  party.  By 
close  and  complete  organization,  which  shall  in- 
clude evei-y  citizen  whose  inclinations  are  toward" 
Republican  principles,  by  the  maintenance  of 
club-rooms  constantly  open  for  discussion  anj 
friendly  intercourse,  by  frank  debate  in  open 
meetings  where  the  interchange  of  views  shall 
be  invited  freely,  and  by  such  a  thorough  dis- 
tribution of  Republican  newspapers  as  will  in- 
sure to  every  voter  the  opportunity  of  under- 
standing the  aims  of  the  party  and  the  results 
of  its  administration  and  legislation,  a  force  can 
be  exerted  upon  public  opinion  which  will  inevi- 
tably bring  out  many  thousands  of  Republican, 
ballots  that  might  otherwise  be  lost.  The 
League  movement  promises  great  advantages 
and  desei^es  the  hearty  support  of  all  who  wisht 
Republican  policies  sustained. 


MORE    TRADE    AND    LESS    TAXES. 

According  to  Senator  Carlisle,  whatever  the- 
McKinley  bill  did  or  did  not,  it  was  sure  to 
cause  an  increase  of  taxation  and  a  decrease  of 
importation.  The  Senator  obtained  this  result- 
by  arguing  that  the  duties  being  generally  in- 
creased, import-ation  naturally  would  fall  off,  but 
not  so  much  as  to  prevent  the  heavier  rates  of 
duty  from  drav\ing  a  larger  revenue  than  ever 
from  the  people's  pockets.  There  are  several 
points  in  which  the  Senator's  statement  was, 
weak,  but  the  chief  was  in  its  blind  disregard 
of  the  free-list.  Like  his  fellow  Free  Traders, 
he  never  thinks  of  the  free  list.  His  speeches- 
had  no  room  for  the  fact  that  it  provided  a  free 
im]Kirtation  10  per  cent  greater  than  that  of 
the  Mills  bill,  including  goods  imported  in  1889' 
to  the  value  of  !S365,406,000,  on  which  the 
people  had  paid  taxes  of  more  than  $65,- 
000,000. 

It  is  possible  to  obtain  now  a  fairly  good 
idea  of  the  influence  which  the  new  tariff  is 
exerting  on  revenues  and  importations.  The 
McKinley  bill  went  into  effect  on  October  6, 
1890.  Taking  the  seven  months  beginning  with 
the  following  December  and  ending  with  last 
June,  it  is  seen  that  the  total  importation  of 
merchandise  amounted  to  55493,437,678,  as 
against  §471,025,966  in  the  same  months  of 
the  year  preceding,  and  the  revenues  from  those 


BIG    ISSUKS    OF    AN    OFF    YT;.U?:. 


imports  in  the  peiiod  ombiaced  in  1890-'91 
amounted  Ui  Sii3.l2(J,07fi  14,  as  against 
$136,033,381  69  in  the  period  of  1889-'90.  At 
the  same  time  our  exports  of  domestic  produce 
have  greatly  inci'eased,  amounting  to  8510,- 
021,807  during  the  seven  months  specified  in 
1890-"91,  as  against  !r482, 155,402  during  the 
same  months  of  the  year  before.  These  are 
facts— hard,  unyielding  facts— and  they  send 
Mr.  Cariirtle's  speculations  to  the  ground.  The 
precise  figures  of  revenue  and  importation  dur- 
ing aach  of  the  months  mentioned  are  shown 
in  the  following  table.     The  figures  are  oflBcial : 


O    O    I-    00     .-     t- 


CO 
CO 

a 

g 

CI 

o 

s 

c-. 

te 

a 

5 

01 

»H 

N 

IH 

1 

r3 

00 

5 

CO 

o 

LO 

lO 

1-^ 

o 

o 

h- 

1 

3 

o 

00 

5: 

p? 

1 

1 

1 

1 

C      O      I-      r1 


,H   w    ci    tc    to    CO    o 
CO    'X    c    rt   o    ':!   ci 


n   « 

ub 

CD 

,!« 

» 

O 

§   g 

O 
O 

5! 

ra 

^ 

O     51 

o 

H 

rt 

rH 

n 

I".     00     t-     t- 


,t-l 

r-t 

j,. 

o 

o 

« 

o 

10 

■^ 

a 

iH 

o 

z 

^ 

Q 

a 

?1 

O 

:i 

B 

g 

r^ 

a 

ei 

d 

■* 

^ 

S  g  <  g 


The  effect  of  this  table  is  crushing  upon  the 
Free  Traders.  It  shows  how  accurate  and  faith- 
ful vx^ere  the  representations  made  by  the  au- 
thors of  the  Jlcls^inley  bill  as  to  its  effects,  and 
how  utterly  mistaken  were  those  offered  by  its 
opponents.  Trade  is  freer  than  ever.  Reve- 
nues are  smaller.  We  do  more  business  and 
we  pay  less  taxes.  The  free  importation  of 
1889-'90  in  the  total  indicated  above  was 
$161,589,912.  That  of  1890-'91  was  §241,- 
130,314.  rn~otber  words,  access  to  such  needed 
foreign  goods  as  they  do  not  or  cannot  them- 
selves produce  is  less  hindered  to  the  people 
than  ever  before,  -ivhile  foreign  goods  compet- 
ing with  their  own  ai«  held  back  that  theirs 
may  have  the  first  chance  in  their  markets.  So 
long  as  racial  lines,  political  divisions  and  in- 
dustrial  ine^iualities   remain   to  mark   off   one 


nation  from  another  this  must  be  the  policy  ol 
a  well-ordered  community. 

• 

BUILD     UP     I  HE    LKAGCE. 

From  everj-  point  of  view  it  is  important  to 
the  success  of  the  Republican  c-ampaign  in  New- 
York  this  fall  that  the  Convention  of  League 
Clubs  which  is  to  be  held  at  Syi-acuse  on 
August  5  should  be  largely  attended.  In  Ohio 
the  League,  working  in  perfect  harmony  with 
tl\e  regular  organization,  as  everywhere  it  should 
and  nuist  work,  is  giving  a  remarkable  impetus 
to  the  Republican  campaign.  The  League 
movement  has  nevei'  extended  so  fai-  in  New- 
York  as  in  some  of  the  other  large  States,  but 
it  is  powerful  and  can  reaidily  be  made  much 
more  so.  The  work  done  liy  President  Me- 
Alpin  and  his  associates  in  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee of  the  State  League  has  insured  a  large 
and  enthusiastic  convention.  By  so  much  as  its 
size  is  increased,  its  efficiency  in  promoting 
party  interests  will  increase  too.  It  ought  to 
draw  together  2.0  00  delegates.  Between  now 
and  August  5  many  clubs  may  be  formed  if  our 
friends  in  the  country  districts  •nill  act  upon 
the  suggestions  contained  in  the  letteis  that 
have  been  so  extensively  addressed  to  them  by 
Colonel  McAlpin.  It  is  a  common  American 
experience  that  volunteers  make  the  best  sol- 
diers. That  is  one  of  the  theories  of  free  gov- 
ernment. It  should  operate  to  render  the  League 
eufliciently  strong  and  \\eU  organized  to  carry 
every  election  precinct  whei-e  a  fair  fighting 
chance  can  be  found. 

It  is  gratifying  to  know  that  the  regular 
partj'  organisation  has  encouraged  and  assisted 
Colonel  McAlpin's  work.  The  part;\'  leaders  in 
almost  every  county  are  active  in  promoting  the 
formation  of  clubs,  and  are  lending  the  benefits 
of  theu-  experience  towaid  solving  the  diffi- 
culties which  in  country  districts  especially 
stand  in  the  <vay  of  political  association.  There 
is  no  Itength  to  which  they  should  not  go  in  a 
work  so  promising.  They  should  let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly known  that  they  look  with  interest  and 
satisfaction  at  every  movement  which  gives- 
strength  to  Republican  prospects.  Practical- 
ly, the  only  diflHoulty  encountered  anywhere  in 
this  ytate  or  in  others  to  embarrass  the  progress 
of  the  League  is  the  fear  on  the  part  of  con- 
servative politicians  that  it  may  in  some  way 
bring  about  a  division  of  forces,  a  clash  of  party 
interests  and  internal  friction.  The  danger  of 
this  has  nowhere  been  realized,  and  the  idea  is- 
one  that  should  be  constantly  guarded  against. 
Republicans  should  remember  that  the  politi- 
cal scales  in  this  State  hang  very  evenly.  A 
slight  influence  one  v.&y  or  the  other  means 
success  or  disaster.  The  extension  of  these 
League'  Clubs-  is  not  a  slight  influence  but  a 
great  one,, far  more  than  enough  if  it  be  wisely 
directed  to  insm-e  the  recovery  of  every  brands 
of  the  ,^tate  government. 


A  PRACTICAL  TEST  FOR  VOTERS. 


DEMOCRATIC   LIBS     OF    THE   EAST    CANVASS    EXPOSED. 


PRICES  IN  1890. 


EFFECTS  OF  THE  TAEITF  TESTED— EETAIL 
'  PEICES'LAST  SEPTEMBER  AMB  EST  1891. 


From  The  New-Yorlc  Tribune,  February  2,  1891. 

The  course  of  prices  in  1890  was  strongly  in- 
fluenced by  two  distinct  causes,  the  effects  of  wiioh 
it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish.  Expectation  of 
silver  coinage  caused  a  rise  early  in  the  year, 
but  that  advance  was  aided  to  some  extent  by 
news  that  much  winter  wheat  had  been  killed. 
Again,  in  August,  a  marked  advance  accompanied 
tihe  purchases  of  silver  and  the  rise  in  its  price, 
but  at  that  time  also  the  certainty  of  a  great  loss 
of  corn,  oats  and  wheat  had  a  powerful  influence. 
These  were  the  forces  which  substantially  con- 
trolled the  moivements  of  the  year.  The  new 
Tariff  bill,  about  the  influence  of  which  there 
was  so  much  talk,  had  no  appreciable  influence 
whatever,  as  will  presently  appear. 

The  same  auantitieS,  proportioned  to  their  actual 
consumption  in  this  countiy,  of  several  hundred 
articles,  including  those  which  represent  more 
than  nine-tentiis  of  the  entire  cost  of  hving,  which 
cost  at  wholesale  prices  in  New-Yorli  SlOO  05  at 
the  end  of  1887,  and  deoUned  to  S94  38  at  the 
end  of  1888,  and  further  declined  to  S90  29  at  the 
end  of  1889.  continued  to  fall  until  February 
26,  189U.  when  the  cost  of  the  same  articles  and 
quantities  was  only  $87  64.  Then  began  the  first 
rise  prompted  by  expectation  of  silver  coinage  and 
speculation  in  breadstuffs.  But  the  movement  in 
wheat,  corn  and  oats,  and  the  actual  scarcity  of 
potatoes  incident  to  the  season,  caused  more  than 
three-auarters  of  the  entire  advance.  The  highest 
point  reached  iu  the  spring  was  $91  64  1-2.  on 
April  22,  and  the  advance  from  February  26  was 
$4,  while  the  difference  in  cost  of  the  above  named 
articles  alone  accoiunted  for  S3  06  of  that  ad- 
vance. The  changes  in  other  prices  were  there- 
fore comparatively  unimportent.  But  for  the 
stimulus  given  to  speculation  in  breadstuffs  by 
prospects  of  monetary  expansion,  the  rise  in  that 
class  of  articles  would  probably  not  have  been 
so  great. 

A  decline  then  followed  to  the  lowest  point 
for  the  year,  May  ".7,  which  was  but  §87  34.  Up 
to  this  time  the  naturally  prevailing  tendency 
was  that  which  had  ruled  ever  since  the  beginning 


of   1888,   and   it   was   helped   at  that   season   by 
prospects  of  remarkably  abundant  crops,   except  cited,  to  account  for  their  advance 


for  wheat  and  some  kinds  of  fruit  which  it  was 
known  the  previous  winter  and  spring  had  out 
off.  Moreover,  after  May  37  the  upward  move- 
ment was  so  gradual  that  as  late  as  June  30  the 
aggregate  cost  of  the  same  articles  and  quan- 
tities  was  only  §89  14  1-2,  so  that  during  the 
first  half  of  the  5'ear,  excepting  the  temporary  ef- 
fects of  silver  agitation  and  the  influence  of  a 
short  wheat  crop,  unusually  low  prices  prevailed. 

Then  came  the  rapid  rise  in  ,7uly  and  August, 
when  it  was  e\pected  that  the  Silver  bUl,  which 
was  to  go  into  full  effect  on  Augiist  13,  would 
swiftly  and  greatlj'  expand  the  currency.  At  the 
same  time,  the  extent  of  injury  to  corn  and  oats 
and  to  spring  wheat  became  known.  The  advance 
in  cost  was  over  '$2  nO  in  July,  and  from  August 
6  to  .'Vugust  37  it  was  $3  11,  so  that  the  aggregate 
cost  of  the  same  articles  and  (Quantities  on  the 
latter  date  was  §94  89  1-2.  In  three  months 
prices  had  mounted  almost  9  per  cent.  Some  re- 
action naturally  followed  when  it  was  seen  that 
the  Silver  bill  did  not  have  the  expected  effect, 
and  by  September  3,  in  onlj'  one  week,  the  ag- 
gregate of  prices  had  dropped  1  1-2  per  cent,  but 
the  later  advance  then  Ijegan,  which  continued 
until  near  the  close  of  the  year.  The  highest 
prices  for  all  commodities  were  made  on  Decem- 
ber 5,  wlfen  the  aggregate  was  §98  45,  but  the 
subsequent  reaction  was  not  great,  and  the  year 
closed  with  a  renewed  upward  tendency,  the  same 
articles  and  quantities  costing  on  December  31 
§98  36  1-2. 

These  figures  relate  to  wholesale  prices  only, 
and  the  rapid  advance  during  the  last  quarter 
was  not  due  to  the  tariff,  but  directly  to  failure 
of  crops  and  speculation  in  the  products  of  which 
the  supply  was  short.  Included  in  the  aggregate 
for  September  3  are  quantities  of  wheat,  corn, 
oats,  potatoes,  butter,  eggs  and  apples  which  cost 
just  $5  04  1-2  more  on  December  5  than  on  Sep- 
tember 3,  while  the  rise  in  the  aggregate  of  all 
commodities  as  above  stated  was  but  §5  10.  Un- 
less it  be  maintained  that  wholesale  prices  of 
these  commodities  were  lifted  by  new  duties,  the 
influence  of  those  duties  upon  wholesale  prices 
generally  must  be  pronounced  practically  nil. 
There  were  other  and  sufiicient  reasons  for  these 
advances.  Butter  and  eggs  always  rise  as  the 
winter  comes  on.  Apples  and  potatoes  were  ex- 
traordinarily scarce.  The  loss  of  600,000,000 
bushels  of  corn,  of  200,000,000  bushels  of  oats, 
and  100,000,000  bushels  of  wheat,  was  assuredly 
enough,   with  the  active  speculation  thereby  ex- 

The  follow- 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAJJ.  11 

ing  talilo   sliows   tlic  aggregate   cost  of  all  com-  five,   of  the  changes  reported,  are  rerluclions  in 

modlties  included,  Init  arranged  in  classes,  "  other  price,  while  of  the  advances  reported  in  only  an 

food"  embracing  sugar,   molasses,   liquors,   coffee,  equal  number  of  oases   by  far  the  larger  part  are 

tea,  rice,  fish,  salt  and  spices;   the   "metal  prod-  j;ue  to  causes  with  which  the  tnrifP  has  nothing  to 

uots"  embracing  coal  and  petroleum;  and  the  mis-  do. 

oelJaneous  articles  including  lumber,  brick  and  all         Out  of   298   quotations  obtained   from  four   of 

building  materials,   turpentine,   liusced-oil,   hemp,  the   best  known  dealers  in   groceries  and   canned 

paper,   glass,  soap,  many  varieties  of  paints,   fer-  goods    twenty-two    show   lower    prices   now   than 

tUizers,  and  about  sixty   kinds  of  chemicals  and  on    September    1,    namely   for   sugar,   flour,   lard, 

drugs.     The  cost  of  the  same  articles  and  quanti-  certain    fruits   and    olives;    twenty   show   higher 

ties  in  each  class  at  the  beginning  of  each  year  prices,    namely,    for   eggs,    imported    bacon,    aoid 

since  18-0  is  shown  in  comparison  as  follows:  olives,  butter,  coffee,  corn  and  oatmeal,  potitoes 

uioaastuirs.  Meats.  ''^ffvl.T  %o"  ^"'^   ^'^^'^  =   ^^-^   '50  shosv  no  change  whatever.' 

1»7» Sip  •ii'a  «7  50'2  «iau4i2  $11  SO  "a  In    the    latter    class    are    all    the    quotations    for 

lam... ....... ..'.'.  isTi  9  75^  17  3T1-J  ji  oc^  canned  good.s,  which,  it  is  said,  were  enormously 

iaBs;:;:.";;;.:::."::  io«i  1080""  "oo"  ""s"  advanced  to  consumers.     The  rise  in  eggs  and  but- 

mtii'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  I'.isDH!  low"  ia!<s'2  1041  ter  is  incident  to  the  season,  and  the  advances  in 

ismg!  !!.:::.!!!!!  .1  iei?i2  s  84'::  "so"  a  oE'"  corn  and  oatmeal  and  potatoes  needs  nothing  but 

}^Sl JS^Hr  S?,?.'^  11  .-jSi-j  915"  the  sliort  crops  to  explain  them,  while,  if  Amer- 

lOOO 1«    no's  O    yJ  l.>    0.^  10   34  •  ,  ,r  1  ^ 

1889 10  JO'S         8  54  IS  7212        10  35  ic^n  worlcmen  suiter  becau.se  they  pay  more  lor 

Jyy^ 19  72'"        7p"o  10  311-.        lij^-'"^  import<?d  bacon  or  olives  or  starch,  the  fact  is  not 

Metlr  MIS-'  "  generally   known. 

,«,u  ^'-S'*;!?"-  i'J'^'nA'^-  «9"S",?P"^-  ^"'l'.'-.  The  aggregate  of  all  prices  quoted  was  $195  11 

1880 20  02         24  07  10  91  119  OB'S  HI  [September,  and  IS  now  §194  35  for  the  Same  aT- 

i^^ll 18771"      2050"^  100.31"  11945''"  "^"'es.     But  a   more  accurate  mode  is  to  reckon 

is83i.'.''!.".;!!.'."!.'!  18  OS'S      18  92  17  29"  U5  32     ,  100   coi-Ts  Spent  for  each  article  quoted   in  Sep- 

1885:::::::::;::;::  law         wqIS  ufi^  ^aiW'  tember,  and  the  corresponding  cost  of  the  same 

^««^ 1502^^       ilIsS  iS^ai"        9494§  quantity    in    .lanuary,    and    on    that    basis    §298 

is8s: ::::::::::::::  13  29         1733  1453"  10005  would  buy  in  September  what  cost  S^OS  51  in  Jan- 

i^ju;::"::::::::::;  14 lU    It^V'     ilfp     90.29     ^^^''y-  ^ii« "'-*  a<i^'a'ice  being  oniy  a  sixth  of  1  per 

1891 14  381;         lo  87,i2  14  22  98  Jo's       Cent. 

Here    it    appears    that    in    breai)stu!Ts,    and    in  Out  of  276  quotations  of  boots  and  shoes,  from 

dairy  and  garden  products,  occurred  more  than  the  several  dealers,  only  one  reports  any  advance  what- 

entire  advance  in  p-ices    from  January  1,  1890,  ever  in  prices.     The  others  report  thirteen  changes 

to  January  1,  1891,  while  meats  and  other  food  out    of    240    quotations,    the    changes    being    all 

were  substantially  unclia.nged,  and  clothing,  metal  reductions  in   price.     But  the  one  dealer  reports 

products,  and  the  miscellanocus  articles  were,  on  sixteen  changes  out  of  thirty-six  quotations,  the 

the    whole,    lower.     As    the    three    latter    classes  changes    being    all    advances.     Including   all    the 

include  articles  which  are  cliiefly  aftected  bj    the  quotations  given  the  ratio  of  cost  would  be  such 

taritT,    the   fact  th.it   tliose   were   lower   for   each  that  §276  in  September  would  buy  what  §277  97 

class  at  the  end  of  1890  than  at  the  beginning,  would    buy    in    January.        But   presumably    the 

notwithstanding  an  important  rise  in  the  cost  of  buyers  who  have  their  eyes  open  do   not  search 

other  products,  wjll  appear  to  fair-minded  inquirers  long   for '  the    one    place   where   prices    have    ad- 

entirely  cunchisivc.  vanced. 

But  it  was  not  wholesale  prices,  some  will  ob-  Out  of  202   quotations  of  hardware,  tools  and 

ject,  that  were  immediately  or  especially  affected  implements  only  seven  have  advanced  at  all,  four 

by   the   tariff.     Tlie   claim  was  made  during  the  of  these  quotations  being  for  Disston  saws,  two 

late  political  contest  that  retail  dealers  had  raised  for  imported  tro\\els,  and  one  for  boxwood  rules, 

prices  of  -'every  necessary  and  eomfcrt  of  life."  AU  other  quotations  are  not  changed.     If  Ameri- 

The  falsehood  had  its  eflect,  bat  it  is  worth  while  can   workingmeu   are   supposed   to   buy   as  freely 

to  know  that  it  was  a  falsehood.     The  Tribune  of  imported   trowels   as   ol   American,   the   latter 

has  caused  an  investigation  to  be  made  of  retail  being    cheaper,    the    same    articles    which   would 

prices  in  the  most  important  branches  of  trade  in  have  cost  §202  in  all  kinds  of  hardware  in  Sep- 

this  city,  the  resilts  of  wliich  are  criven  in  full  in  tember  would  cost  in  January  §202  83,  ah  advance 

the  following   columns.     The  tables  show  actual  of  less  than  half  of  one  per  cent, 
selling  prices  on  September  1,  more  than  a  month         In  glassAvare   and   cutlery  only  five  quotations 

before  the  new  tariff'  went  into  effect,  and  when  it  out  of  forty-eight  show  any  advance,   and  those 

was  very  generally  believed  that  the  Viill  would  are  for  articles  not  of  common  use,  excepting  the 

not  pass,  in  comparison  with  present  retail  prices,  larger  sizes  of  window  glass.     The  smaller  sizes 

after  the  new  duties  havt   been  in  force  for  more  are   unchanged,    and    nearly    all    table   ware   and 

than  three  months.     The   results  may   be  briefly  household     goods.     The     combination     of    Amer- 

sta.ted.     Out  .  of    051    quotations    obtained,    only  ican   workers   and   ni.anufacturers   to   control   the 

ninety,   or  less  than   one   in   ten,   were   found  to  price  of  window  glass  is  the  obvious  explanation, 

have  been  changed  in  any  way,  upward  or  dovim-  and  the  duties  have  not  been  so  changed  as,  to 

ward,    since    September    1.     Tiiis    fact    atone,    if  alter  their  power  in  the  least      In  this  olrss  §48 

there   v^ere   nothing   to   add,    completely   disposes  in  September   would    buy  as  much  as  $48  65   in 

of   the   falsehood   so   industriously   circulated   for  January,  an  advance  of  1.5  per  cent, 
political  purposes.     But  again,  just  half,  or  forty-  Out  of  128  quotations  of  clothing,   underwear, 


12 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAK. 


blankets,  cotton  goods,  table  li7ien  and  carpets, 
changes  are  found  in  only  nineteen,  of  which  there 
are  reductions  in  seven  quotations  for  clothing, 
one  of  blankets  and  one  grade  of  carpets,  nine  in 
all,  while  there  are  advances  in  five  quotations  for 
underwear,  in  three  for  table  linen,  one  of  carpets 
and  one  of  cotton  goods.  In  all  articles  quoted 
of  this  class,  §128  in  September  would  buy  only 
as  much  as  $127  41  would  buy  now.  But  this 
statement  is  exceedingly  incomplete,  as  perusal 
of  the  detailed  reports  will  show,  booanse  of  a 
vast  number  and  variety  of  articles  of  which  no 
exact  quotations  are  given,  though  prices  are 
shown  to  have  beef,  much  reduced.  This,  I?  par- 
ticularly the  case  with  the  great  vaiiety  of 
"  ready-made"  clothing,  and  a  laige  sh;ure  of  the 
grades  of  woollen  cloth  most  generally  worn. 

Confining  the  statement,  however,  to  those  ar- 
ticles only  of  which  definite  quotations  are  given 
and  giving  equal  importance  to  the  more  costly 
imported  goods  where  those  of  American  make 
are  cheaper,  or  to  the  reports  of  the  single  dealer 
who  is  alone  in  advancing  prices  of  boots  and 
shoes,  the  aggregate  cost  of  951  articles  quoted 
for  SeptemTier  would  buy  the  same  articles  at 
retail  now  for  $954  37,  an  advance  of  only  3-10 
of  1  per  cent.  This  is  the  fact  about  retail  prices, 
it  must  be  remembered,  at  a  time  when  there  lias 
been  an  advance  of  nearl.y  (i  per  cent  in  the  whole- 
sale prices  of  all  commodities,  though  exclusively 
because  of  the  rise  in  bieadstuffs  antl  in  dair,y 
and  garden  products.  If  proper  addition  should 
be  made  for  the  great  variety  of  articles  of  cloth- 
ing which  are  mow  selling  at  lower  prices  than 
in  September,  and  for  other  articles  of  which 
reports  are  given  but  definite  quotations  are  not 
obtained,  there  would  undoubtedly  be  found  a 
small  decline  rather  than  any  advance  in  the  aver- 
age  of  retail  prices.  W.  M.  G. 

PKICES  IN  DETAIL. 
Tile  following  tables  and  quoted  remarks  sliow  the 
prevailing  prices  of  to-day  In  representative  houses,  as 
compared  with  those  of  September : 

GLASSWARE  AND  CUTLERY. 

B.    J.   DENNING    &    CO. 

Prices,  Prices, 

Sept.  1,  1890.  .Ian.  15,  1891. 

3,5-      75  per  doz Tumblers Per  doz...        35-      75 

$5  00-1 2  00  per  doz Forks Per  doz.,   $5  00-12  00 

5  00-12  CO  per  doz Knives Per  doz.,     5  00-12  00 

85-  140  per  doz Cups,  Saucers Per  doz.,      86-  140 

9  25-15  50 Diinner    set    (127    pieces) 9  25-15  50 


UNDERWEAR. 

.  DliNNING. 


66-  1  25  per  doz Goblets Per  doz.. 

O'NJSlLlj'S. 


125 


Sept.    1,    1890.  Jan.    15,    1891. 

38-      97  per   doz Tumblers Per   doz.         33-      97 

$4  36-  5  00  per  (ioz l"'orks Per  doz.  S4  36-  5  00 

5  00  per  doz Knives    Per  doz.    4  36-5  00 


OL,lVJiK   MCGUKKIN. 
Sept.    1,    1890.  .Ian.    15,    1891. 

35-$4  00  per  doz Tumblers    Per  doz.       35-iS4  00 

50-  5  CO  per  doz Goblets    Per  uoz.       .50-  5  OJ 

60-  3  00  per  doz.  Forks,  cell'd  ban.  I'er  Uoz.  60-  3  00 
$1  00-  6  00  per  aoz.  Knives,  cell'd  ban.  Per  doz.  $1  UO-  6  00 
120-  5  00  per  doz.  ..Cups  and  sauCprs-.P.  p  doz.    110-  5  00 

60-  4  50  per  doz I'liites Per  doz.       60-  4  50 

10  00-35  00. .Dinner  sets  (125  pieces,  decorated). .10  00-35  00 
This  bouse  says  that  the  McKinley  bill  has  raised  tne 
price  on   American  chiiua  a  little,    but  the  retail   price  is 
not  changed. 

JOHN  PAKKE. 
Kept;  1,  3890.  .Jan.  15.  1891. 

7o-$l  20  per  dozen  —  Tumblers per  dozen,       75-$l  20 

S4  50-  5  50  i)er  dozen Forlis per  dozen,  So  00-  6  00 

100-  150  per  dozen Uups per  dozen.    100-  150 

1  00-  1  50  per  dozen Saucers per  dozen,    1  00-  1  50 

800-20  00 Dinner  set  (125  pieces) 8  OO-l'O  00 

4  50-  5  50  per  dozen Knives per  dozen,    5  00-  6  00 


tjept.  1,  1800. 

$    13-$    25  each CoUars,    4-ply.. 

repair,. uuiis   


25-       40 


75-  125 Shirts  75-  1  25 

(Cotton)  drawers  (all  imported). 

2  75-  3  25 (Woollen)  drawers 2  75-  3  25- 

25-  160 (Cotton)    hosiery 25-3  50 

35-  1  75...(\VooUen)   hosiery  (all  imported)...       35-  17* 

175-   295 (Cotton)     undershirts 3  75-  2  95 

2  75-  3  25 (Woollen)     undershirts 2  75-  3  2S 

O'NEILL'S. 

Sept.  1,  1890.                                                          Jan.  15,  1891. 

$    20-$    25  eacii Collars,    4-ply each  $  20-$    25 

15-      25  pair Cull's  pair  15-      2S 

75-   100 Shirts  75-100- 

50-      55 Drawera    (cotton) 55-      6(> 

85-2  00 Drawers     (wooUen) 85-2  00 

26-  40 Hosiery   (cotton) 31-      55 

24-      75 Hosier.y  (wooUen) 24-      75- 

Undershirts    (cotton) -      7a 

38-      76 Undershirts  (woollen) 38.      T* 

This  lirm  says  that  American  mannlacturers  have  taken 
advantage  of  the  Tariir  bill  and  have  used  it  to  raise  prices 
but  the  retailers  have  not  raised  prices  to  the  public  except 
in  a  lew  cases.  Shirt  musiin,  5  to  12^  cents  a  .yard,  same 
as  before  September  1.  Sheetings,  15  to  35  cents  a  yard; 
mostly  the  same  as  bel'cre,  but  a  lew  grades  slightly  cheap- 
er, (^tton  ginghams,  lower  grades,  8  and  10  cents,  the 
same  as  lormerly  ;  better  grades,  18  and  20  cents,  an  ad- 
vance of  2^  per  cent.  Sateens,  10,  12^2,  18,  20  cents,  same- 
as  lormerly.  Imported  goods,  about  10  per  cent  higher 
than  lormerly. 

BRILL  BROTHERS. 
Sept.    1,   1890.  Jan.   35,    3893.. 

20  each Collars,     4-ply each,      10-      20 

25  pair Cull's,   4-ply pair,       11- 


2  50 Shirts 

50 Drawers    (cotton) 15- 

4  50 Drawers     (woollen) 98- 

50 Hosiery   (Balbriggan)..  15. 

100  Hosiery    (woollen) 19. 

„_^_ — ;_._    ,.,„._,  ^g_ 

..  98- 


$2  50 

50 

4  50 

50 

loa 

1  98 
4  50 


COTTON  GOODS. 

MACT  &  CO.,  isiuor  Straus— Selling  prices  of  cottoe 
goods  have  not  changed  since  fall.  The  reason  is  we  had  % 
stock  on  hand.  New  goods  cost  more,  and  will  have  ta 
be  sold  higher.  Advances  will  be  from  5  to  7%  ner  cent 
on  most  domestic  cotton  goods.  We  are  selling  some  new 
goods  at  same  prices  as  in  the  fall,  but  lire  losinsr  money  on 
them,  and  it  is  only  a  question  of  time  when  the  rise  must 
come, 

WOOLLEN  PIECE  GOODS. 

BROWNING  &  WARD— Domestic  goods  have  not  yet 
Increased  in  Diiee,  owing  to  the  stock  for  next  spring  hav- 
ing been  bought  last  summer.  For  next  fall's  goods  there 
is  a  prospective  advance  of  5  per  cent  on  the  better  classes. 
and  10  per  cent  on  the  cheaper  grades. 

HENRY  HENRICI— Domestic  woollens  have  not. 
changed  since  September  1.  but  there  is  a  prospect  of  about 
5  per  cent  advance  for  next  faU. 

TiiJBLE  LINEN  AND  BLANKETS 

E.   J.    DENNING   &  CO. 
Sept.  1,  1890.  Jan.  15,  1891. 

40-$2  00  per  yard.  ..Table  cloths  (imported).  ..       40-$2  0(> 

$1  00-  6  00  per  doz Napkins  (imported) $1  00-  6  00 

3  75-12  50 Blankets  2  90-12  ott 

O'NEILL'S. 
Sept.  1,  1890.  Jan.  15.  1891. 

35-  4212-      69  p  r  yd.Table  cloths.      3'?i2-      45-      6» 

82V$1  50-tl  85  per  doz. ...Napkins...      90-    $1  50-$l  85 

2  00-      2  50-3  00 Blankets  $2  00-      1  50-  S  OO 

CARPETS. 

W.    &    J.    SLOANE. 
Sept.  1,  1890.  Jan.  15.  1891. 

50-      85  ijer  yard Ingrains per  yai'd       50-      fl5 

$1  00-$l '50  per  yard Brussels per  yard  $1  00-s 

1  25-  1  50  per  yard Mooufttes per  yard    1  25- 

125-  1  50  per  yard... — 'Velvets p'r  ,)ap:l    133- 

1  75-  2  75  per  yaid Wiltons per  yaid    1  75- 

3  00-  5  00  per 'yaid Axminsters per  yad    3  00-  5  00' 

(W.   &  J.   Sloane  furthermore  authorized  the  statement. 

that  in  the  ordinary  run  of  carpets  the  prices  in  the  coming 
spring  will  be  substantially  the  same  as  they  were  last 
spring  (1890),  the  only  change  being  the  variations  in 
prices  of  special  patterns  and  special  linos  of  imported 
rugs,  but  their  variations  in  prices-  will  be  no  gpeabsr  ttaa 
they  have  been  every  year.) 


>-$l  50 
150 
1  50 


BIG    ISSUKS    OF    AN    OFF    VEAJi. 


E.  J. 
Sept.  1,  1890. 

75  one  price  only... 

$1  25  one  prloo  only... 

1  50-  1  00 

1  33  one  price  only... 

2  20  one  price  only... 
IS.J-  2  06 


DKSSLNa   &   CO. 

Jan.  i.i.  1S91. 
.one  price  only  75 
.one  price  only  SI  25 

L50-  1  UO 

.one  ijplce  olil.v'  1  25 
.one  price  only  2  25 
185-  2  00 


.  ..Ingrains.. 
...Brussels.. 
..Moquottes 
.  ..^^^1vet3.., 
...Wiltons.. 
.  Axmlnsters 


Kept.  1, 

»    25-* 

00-    1 


1  25-  ] 
1  00-  1 
1  75-  2 
1  50-  2 


IS'JO. 
75  per  yard. .. 
35  per  yard... 
GO  pep  yard. . . 
35  per  yard.. 
25  per  yard... 
uO  per  yard. .. 

SHEPP 
1890. 

75  per  yard... 
25  per  yard.. . 
50  per  yard... 
50  per  yard... 
00  per  yard... 
00  per  yard... 


J.    &  J.   DOliSON. 


—  Ingrains 

..  ..Uriissel.s 

.  ..Moguettes... 

....Velvets 

....Wiltons 

..Axmlnsters... 


.Ian.  15.  IbUl. 
.per  yard  $  25-*  75 
.per  yard  90-  1  35 
.per  vard  1  35-  1  00 
.per  yard  1  00-  1  35 
.per  yard  1  85-  2  25 
.per  yard    2  75.  4  60 


...per : 


.VKD     KNAPP    &    CO. 

.Inn.  15.  1891. 

d,  *  50-*  75 
,.  _  d,  90  1  25 
per  val-d,  1  25-  1  50 
per  yaid,  1  00-  1  50 
per  "yard,  1  60.  2  00 
per  yard,    1  30-  2  00 


..Ingral 
..Uriisa. 
..Moqiiet 


TOOLS. 


PATTERS0J1   BROTHERS. 
Sept.  1,  1890.  Jan.  10,  1891. 

«    50-*    80 Aies $    50-$    80 

50-      80 Hatchets 50-      80 

50-      80 Trowels 50-      80 

110-  135 Brade's  English  Bricklayers...-  110-  135 


.Aiuerlcaa  Bricklayers 4c 

90-  125 jVmerican  Plasterers 90- 

20-      40 American  Pointing 20- 

14-      65 Bit    Braces 14- 

6             perm Out  Nails prr  Ih,  6 

5-         6  per  Ih.. Finishing  Cut  Nails. .ijer  m.  5- 

6             ijer  ll)....WIri    Cut  Nails pir  lli,  C 

...       jj,^ 


125 

40 


10- 
40 

75- 


60. 


.Units,    i!( 
...S(inarr.s, 


40 

75-  2  50 
..  90-$l  75 
.$125  $2  25 


.>Vood'-ii  ja 


....      90 
I  ja'ek    $2  00 


Sept.  1,  1890. 


75  WvoS  smoothing  .. 

$2  10  Hon  smcothlui;  $2  10 

5-      15 ...Ghiiiets 5-      15 

Screws. 

12  Good  *6  liicli  screws -S  gross 12 

28  G-ood  1^  inch  screws 'S)  gross 23 

Mr.  Patterson  saM:  "  The  only  tilings  in  our  line  allected 
to  any  extent  by  the  McKinley  bill  ai'e  cutlery,  by  wlJch  I 
mean  pocket  and  caning  Itnives,  i-azors  and  similar  tl)ing3 
Imported  Irom  Sheflleid,  England.  The  eilect  ot  tlie  bill 
will  be  to  bring  AKerican  goods  of  this  class  Icrwaid." 

J.  H.  DRAKE'S  SONS. 

Jan.  16,  1891. 

Aj^es $1  00-$2  00 

Hatchets  20-  100 

Adzes   100-  2  00 

Trowels  : 

«0  90-$l  50 Braries'  English  Bricklayers' 105-  170 

60-  100 Jjuericau  Bricklayers' 50-  100 

75-125 riusterers'    75-125 

Pointing  

3-  5 Cut  nails,   per  in a-        5 

4-  G Flaishing    nails,    i^er   ID 4-        0 

10           Wire  nails,  per  ro 10 

50-  100 Augers   50-  100 

5-  15 Flits  (3  square) 5-      15 

8-      50 Rules    tV      50 

26  Squares  (iron) 25 

60-2  00 ..squares    (steel) 50-2  00 

100-  2  00 Disston's  hand  saws ^  110-  175 

66-  160 Buck   saws 75-  175 

25-      75 Chisels  25-      76 

5-      30 Tack  hammers 5-      30 

15-      25 Iron  hammers 15-     25 

35-100 Steel  hammers 35-  100 

75-      80 Jack   planes 75-      80 

2  00  Iron  planes 2  00 

160  lion  and  wood  planes 150 

60  Ircn  planes,  smoothing 60 

110  ...Iron  anil  wood  nlanes.  smoothing...  1  10 

5-      10 Gimlets    5-      10 

25  2  00 Braces   25-2  00 

Screws : 


WHITE,    VAM    GLAHN    &    CO. 
This  arm's  prices   were  identical   with  Ihos-.e  of 
Drake's  Sons,  except  In  the  following  items: 

6-      10 Wire  nails e 

50-100 Buck    saws 50 


1  00 
1  00 
1  00 


UAL,!,,    (illEl'i'liN   &  CO. 
I,  1800.  Jan.  10,  1891. 

100 A.xes  75-126 

100 Hatchets  30-      75 

Adzes    1  2.j 

Bilcklayeis'   trowels  (Brades,   £ng.).  1 25 

—  Bricklayers'  trowels,  Amerlcaa 75-  100 

Po'nting    trowels,    American. 25-      40 

Nails : 

Cut  nails,    ITi 4 

Wire  nails,    m 6 

175 Saws  100-  175 

100 Buck     biivvs 75-100 

Chlsi/ls,     ij-inch 14 


...llii 


...Tacks,  pep  paper.. 


60 
50- 


KUGL,EK  Si  W01.L.EJJS. 
1,  1890.  Ja 

$150 Axes   

125 Hatohels  

150 Adzes    

1 10. .Trowels,   bricklayers'  Eug.  brades.. 
....Trowels,  bricklayers',  American... 

40 i'lowels,  j)Olntiug 

1  35 Tro^veI8,  i  last -rl  ig 


,  1891. 
>-$i  SO 
)-  126 
>-  1  50 
>•  IIU 
i-  110 
>-      40 


10  ...."laiiiiet;  10 

40-      90 Braces   40-     uo 

100-175-190 Ratchets    100-175-190 

8  Rules,    boxwood lo 

00-      85 JjQuarus    00-      83 

145-  150  —  White    beech    planes,    Utrmau 145-  160 

(Used  by  uerman  cabinet  makers.) 

4  and  5 Tacks  4  and  ft 

11-  2  50. -Screws,  per  gross,  accoid'g  to  size..      11-  2  30 

WILLIAM   H.   UKCKRICH. 

50-$l  00 Axes   5b-*l  00 

40-      75 Hatchets  40-      75 

$150-300 Adzes    150-300 

75-  130 Trowels,  bricklayers' 75.  150 

iNo   English  used.) 

75-  160 Trowels,   plasterers' 75.  i  go 

15-      35 Trowels,    pointing 15.      3; 

4           Cut  nails  (average  price"  per  ID) 4 

5  Finishing  nails  (avei-age  price  per  Di).        g 

6  ...Wire  nails  (average  pnce  per  11))...        0 
73  Augurs   75 

7-      30 Rnles   (boxwood) 7,      30 

25  Squares,    iruu 25 

63  Squares,  steel 155 

150  Saws  (average  jwice) 150 

25-50-  100 oV^",'-"  s,a*XS-- 23  50-  100 

18  Chisels.    14-mch IB 

22  Chisels,     ^-incll 2^ 

28  Chisels,    34-lijch -jg 

32  Cliisels,    1-incli '      32 

50  Cliisels,   I'-j-luch 50 

70  Chisels.    2-iuch 70 

50  Hammers,  steel "      50 

5.      25 Tack  and  iron   liammers "        5.      ofi 

75  Jack  planes 75 

175  i™i  planes .';;  173 

100  White  beech  jack inn 

e5  White  beech  smoothing...         '      bs 

g  Tacks,  per  paper ""        x 

7  Gimlets   ■■        ; 

50-150 wvc   Jiraces   ..     50-150 

3           Screws,  ^s-lnch  up  co  1-inch,  per  dozen        3 
6  Above  %,  ordinary  sizes y 

SHOES. 

ALFRED    J.   CAMMEYER. 

Sept.  1, 1890.  Jan.  16  1591 

$5  00-$7  OO.Lidies'  Fr.  kid  Louis  XV  heels,H.S.$5  00-$?  no 

5  00 Same,  P.  L.  tips 6  00 

5  00 Cloth  top,   P.  L.,   H.   S 5  00 

3  50 P.  L.  foxed,  Fr.  kid  tops 3  go 

5  OO..P.L.Samp.,Kang.  tops,  P.L.tlp.H.S.  6  00 

4  CO.Straight-goat  foxed,  kid  top,  goat  tip.  4  00 
4  OO.Fr.  kid  Waukenphast,  P.L.  tip,  H.s.  4  00 

2  50-  5  00.. ..Kid  button,  P.  L.   tips,  H.   S 2  50-  5  00 

.150 Gaiters. 100 

160=  6  00. .Kid  shoes,  button,  common-sense...  160-  6  00 

3  00-  3  50.Kid-foxed  Kangaroo,  kid  top,  H.  S.  3  00-  3  50 

1  90.  Kid -foxed  Kangaroo,  kid  top,  H.S.  190 
Low  shoes  and  slippers : 

3  00-  4  00 P.   L.   Oxfords 8  00-  4  00 

3  00-  3  50 French  Idd   O-Xfords 3  00-  3  60 

150-  3  00 Kid    Oxfords 1  go-  3  OO 

12.5-  3  50 Kid  Oxfoids,  box  toe 125-  3  50 

100-  3  50 Opera  sUppers 100-  3.S0 

Misses'  : 
1  50-  3  50.Soolma  kid.   straight  goat,    Curacoa 

kid,  button,  spring  heels 150-  8  50 

1  50-  2  50 Kid  button.  P.  L.  tips 150-  2(0 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAH. 


6  00- 
2  50- 
6  00- 

5  00- 

6  00- 
4  00 
2  50- 
6  00- 


2  00- 
100- 
1  00- 
150- 


2  50. -Kangaroo  top,  straight  goat  foxed, 
spring  heels 2  50 

3  50 Kid  common-sense 150' 

1  50..0hild's  button.  Am.    kid,  Fr.  Itid..  1  00 

1  00 Infants' 

Men's: 

7  00 French  calf,   H.  S 5  OQ. 

4  50 American  calf,  H.  S.,  welt 2  50 

7  00 Cork    sole.    H.    S 5  00- 

6  00 P.   L.  cloth  tops,   H.   S 5  00 

6  00. French  calf,  lace.  H.  S.,  double  sole 
American  call,   H.  S 4  00 

7  00-       ..Calf   WaukenoUast.    H.   S 2  50. 

8  00 French  calf,  H.  S.,  boots 6  00- 

6  00 American   calf.   H.   S.,    boots, 

Slippers ; 
2,50 Real  alligator 2  00. 

2  50 Goat  opera 100. 

30  00 Embroidered    opera 100 

2  00 Pumps,    P.    L 150 

Boys' 

4  00  Calf.  H.  S 4  00 

8  00  Calf,  M.  S 3  00 

175  Veal  calf 175 

2  00-  3  00 American   calf,    welt 2  00-  3  00 

4  00  P.  L.   (dress) 4  00 

2  00-  4  50 Waukenphast   2  00-  4  50 

175-200 P.    L.    Oxford 175-200 

150  P.  L.  pumps 150 

2  00  Slippers,  alligator 2  00 

90-  160 Goat  slippers  (opera) 90-  150 

100  Arctics  100 

35-      50 Rubbers   35-      50 

125  Men's  Arctics 125 

75  Men's  rubbers 75 

60  Men's  sandals 60 

35-      50 Men's  Im.  sandals. 

25-      75 Liadies'    rubbers 

125-  175 Ladies'    Arctics 125-  175 

30-      75 Misses'   rubbers. 

125-  150 Misses'   Arctics 125-  150 

"Tou  ma.v  say,"  said  Mr.  Camme.ver,  "that  this  talk 
about  the  McKinley  bill  increasing  the  price  of  shoes  is  all 
rot.  The.y  are  going  to  be  lower  instead  of  higher.  If 
any  manufacturer  should  say  'oo  ma.  'I  am  goiiig  to  raise 
prices/  I  would  say  to  him,  'Let  me  have  your  portrait  to 
hang  In  my  office.  It  would  be  a  curiosity.'  " 
EDWARD    DAT, 

Sept.  1,  1890.                     Women's:                   1891  and  1892. 
150-   2  50 Am.    kid.    button.    M.    S 150-  2  50 

3  50-  5  00 Imported  French  kid,  M.  S 3  50-  6  00 

3  50-  5  00 Imported  French   kid,   H.  S 3  50-  5  00 

125-  2  50 Am.    kid,    O.Kfords 125-  2  50 

2  50-  4  00 French  kid.  Oxfords 2  50-  4  00 

25-      50 Rubbers    25-      50 

125-  3  50 Black  kid  slippers 12,5-  3  50 

Misses' : 

125-  2  50 Kid,   button  and  lace 125-  2  60 

20-      35 Rubbers  20-      35 

Men's : 

175-  3  00 Am.   calf,  M.  S 175-  3  00 

4  00-  5  00 Am.   call,    H.   S 4  00-  5  00 

5  50-  8  00 Flench  calf,  H.  S 5  50-  8  00 

2  50-4  50 P.    li.    shoes 2  60-4  50 

60-       80 Rubbers  50-       75 

100-  150 Arctics 100-  150 

Slippers. 

2  50-  400 Gentlemen's  alligator 2  50-  4  00 

100-  2  00 Imitation  alligator 100-  2  00 

125-  2  50 Goat,  opera. 125-  2  50 

75-  2  50 Embroidered,  opera 75-  2  60 

100-  150 Felt  slipper 100-  150 

Youths' : 

115-  2  00 Am.    call,   M.  S 115-  2  00 

Boys' : 

150-  2  60 Am.    calf,   M.  S 150-  2  50 

(Mr.  Day  said:  "Shoes  are  not  only  as  cheap  as  they 
were  in  September,  but  orders  are  now  being  placed  for 
next  winter  at  lower  rates  than  last  year.  There  Is  a 
tremendous  home  competition  among  manufacturers.  Re- 
tailers are  going  to  get  better  shoes  next  year  for  less 
money.  I  keep  a  sign  up  which  says,  'On  account  of  the 
McKinley  bill  we  can  sell  60-cent  rubbers  for  40  cents.'  ") 

B.  NATHAN. 
Sept.  1, 1890. 


-  3  50 

27- 

-  1  50 

2  00 

-  1  00 

2  85- 

-  7  00 

4  OO- 

-  4  50 

5  00- 

-  7  00 

4  35- 

-  6  00 

50- 

)-  6  00 

125- 

)-  •>  00 

-  8  00 

2  50- 

-  6,00 

139 

1  39 

•-  2  50 

1  25- 

1-30  00 

-  2  00 

2  00 

4  00 

5  00 

$3  50-$8  00 
1  90-  5  00 
5  00-  9  00, 


Jan.  lO.fegi. 
Women's : 

French    kid $3  60-$8  00 

Dongola  kid 190-  5  00 


...Patent  leather 5  00-  9  00 

Rubbers  27-      85 

2  00  High  button  Arctics 2  00 

2  25-  6  00 French  kid  Oxfords 2  25-  6  00 

2  85-  7  00 Patent  leather  Oxfords 2  85-  7  00 

135  White  bid  slippers 135 

8  50  Sathi  slippers 2  85 

125-  3  50 Black  French  kid 125.  3  50 


3  00 Dongola   kid 2  00-3  00 

Patent  leather  shoes 3  50 

45 Rubbers  27-      45 

Arctics  2  00 

f  Men's ; 

5  00 American  calt,  M.  S 2  85-  5  00 

5  00 American  calf,  H.  S 4  00-  5  00 

8  00 French   calf,    H,    S 5  00-  8  00 

9  00 Patent  leather  shoes 4  35-  9  00 

160 Rubbers  50-  150 

2  00 Aictics    125-  200 

Slippers : 

3  50 ....Genuine    alligator 250.  8  50 

Imitation    alligator 89 

2  00 Goat   opera 150-2  00 

Embioidered  opera 89 

200 Felt    slippers 125-2  00 

Boys-  : 

American  calf,  M.  S 2  00 

French   calf,    H.    S 4  00 

Patent  leather  shoes 5  00 


L.    M.    HIRSCH. 

Sept.  1,  1890.  Jan.  IB,  1891. 

$3  75  Women's  imported  French  kid $3  75 

3  50    4  50 — Wonien's  imported  French  kid -J  50    4  50 

160-  300 Women's    Dongola 150-  3  00 

2  65-  3  98. .Women's  1st  qual.  itid,  P.  L.  tips..  2  65-  3  98 
2  65  -Women's   French  kid,  P.  L.  tips..  2  00 

2  89  Wonien's  P.  li.  Oxfords 2  50 

2  35  ....Women's   French  kid  Oxfords....  1  sy 

175  Women's    P.    L.    slippers 125-  133 

100  Women's  white  kid  slippers.  ..-.      75 

175  ...Misses'  French  lud,  1st  ctuaiity. ..  135-  160 

100  Misses'  pebble   goat 100 

2  35  Misses'    P.   li.   vamp 2  35 

1  75  ..Misses'  straight  goat,  spring  heel..  1  50 

Boys'  shoes : 

1  25  Veal  calf,    M.   S 125 

150  American   calf,   M.    S 150 

2  00  French  calt,  M.  S.-.- 2  00 

shoes ; 


1  00 
90 


Youth?. 
-Veal   caU,    M.   S.. 
.Split  calf,    M.   S. 


100 
90 


Fren,;h  calf,   M. 

175-  2  00 French   calt,    hand  sewed 175-  2  00 

150-  175 American  call,  hand  sewed 150-  175 

Men's  shoes : 

100-  2  00 American   calf,    M,    S 100-  2  00 

2  50-  3  50 French    call,    M.    S 2  50-  3  60 

2  50-  3  75 American   call,    H.    S 2  50-  3  75 

3  50-  4  50 French  call,    H.   S 3  50-  4  50 

Men's  slippers : 

59-      89 imitation    alligator 59-      89 

150-  2  50 Genuine  alligator  — 

75-  125 Goat  opera 

39-  150 Kmirro  derecl    opera.. 


50-  2  50 
75-  1  25 
39-  1  58 


50 Felt     slippers 25- 


60 


.Women's  rubbers 

50-      75  Women's    arctic^ 50-      75 

20  Ohliorfn's  rubbers. 20 

25  Misses'    rubbers 25 

50-      75 Misses' arctics 50-      7i, 

35-      50 Men's  rubDers 35-      50 

75-100 Men's    arctics 75-100 

(Mr.  Hirsch's  superintendent  said:  "We  are  reducing 
prices  on  all  lines  of  shoes,  and  suall  continue  to  do  so 
until  our  spring  trade  sets  in.  Mr.  Hirsch  laughs  at  any 
one  who  tries  to  scare  him  about  the  McKinley  bill.") 


S.    COHN    &   BKOTMKR. 


Sep_t.  1.  1890. 


Jan.   16,  1891. 


$3'56     ■      Women's  French  kid $4  tfo 

2  00  Women's   Don.cola  kid 2  25 

2  50  Women's   Dongola  kid 2  75 

2  50  Women's  Dongola  P.  1j.  tip 2  75 

5  00  Women's  kid,   llrst  (luality B  60 

1  00-  4  50... .Women's  French  kid.  P.  L.  tip....  5  00-  S  50 
4  00  Women's  Frencn  kid,  plain  toe —  4  00 

2  75  women's  bright  Dongola 3  00 

Women's  bright  Dongola, 3  25 


.French  kid 8  25 


2  50 

3  50 
175 

1  25 

2  75 
2  00 
2  00 
2  75 
2  50 
150 
175 
2  00 
2  50 


150 
200 
260 

3  50 

200 
8  00 

4  60 
6  00 


Women's  P,  L.  Oxford  ties 3  00 

Women's  French  kid 3  50 

Women's  P.  li.  slippers 190 

Women's    white    iiid 135 

Misses'    French  kid 3  00 

Misses'  Dongola  kid 2  25 

Misses'  straight  goat 2  25 

Misses'  P.    L.   vamp 3  00 

(Dongola)  Misses  P.  L.  tip  spring  heel  2  50 

Misses'    plain    Dongola 150 

Misses'    plain   Dongola 2  00 

Misses'  straight  goat 2  00 

Misses'  straight  goat 2  50 

Boys'  shoes ; 

Veal  call,  machine  sewed 150 

American  calf,  machine  sewed —  2  00 

American  calf,   hand  seized 2  50 

French    calf,    hand   sewed 3  50 

Men's  shoes : 

....American  calf,  machine  sewed 2  00 

American   calf,   hand  sewed 3  00 

French  calf,  machine  sewed 5  50 

French   calf,    hand   sewed 6  00 


BIG    ISSUES    C/F    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


Men's  slippers. 

■  00  Imitation    aUlgator 100 

100-2  50 Goat  opera 1  UO-  2  50 

225-  8  60 GenuLni'  alligator 2  25-  3  50 

100-800 EnibroWcTua    opura 100-3  00 

100-  160 Felt  suppers 100-  150 

(Mr.  Colin  said  that  he  haU  liicruasiU  tlie  price  ol 
n'omen's  and  ralssos'  shoes,  owing  to  the  lact  that  leather 
waa  lilgher.  Ho  was  lound  to  be  the  only  dealer  wiio  had 
marked  his  shoi's  higher  than  they  were  on  September  1.) 

GEOCERIES. 

PAKK    &  TILFOUD. 

6ept.  1,  1890.                                                       Jan.  16,  18'J1. 

Canned  Goods : 

25           Salmon,  1  ih  case 20 

25           Lobster,  1  ir.  case 25 

28            Shrlniiis  1  11  eaae 28 

22           Corned  beef,  2  II)  case 22 

40           Corned  beet,  4  II)  case 40 

Sardines : 

38           Boneless,  =3  lb  tins 38 

28            Boneless,   =4  lb  tins 28 

80            Boneless,   >2  II)  tins 80 

25           Bones,   ^   II)   tbjs 25 

18           Bones,    ^j   Ih  tins 18 

17           Ftrris's   hams 15 

80           amolied  beef  tongues,   each 75 

Bacon ; 

35           Irish  bacon,  per  II) 88 

88           English   Wiltshire,   per   Ih 40 

Cheese : 

15           American  mild   cream,  per  11) 15 

26           American  dairy,  peril) 25 

100           Edam,  each  100 

Lard : 

S3  3  11)  palls 85 

55  5  U)  palls 50 

110  10  ill  palls 100 

Butter  ; 

Jan.,  1890.  Jan.  16,  '91. 

..Creamery,  per  H).. 


au i./rtaiuerj(,  pur  ill ao 

50  ...Fancy  Phlla..  ^2  1^  prints,  per  lb...      ,55 

80  Fancy  Darlington.  J-.;  m  prints,  per  11)      SO 

Coireos ; 

84  Eoasted  Java 36 

86  Koasted   Mocha 30 

80  Boasted  Maiacaibo 30 

80  lloasted   Kio 30 

Firm  handles  no  unroasted. 

Suear : 

65  Cut  loaf.  ul:e.  7  16.- 62 

65  Crushed,  pk^.  7  fl) 52 

63  Powdered,  pka.  7  II) 52 

60  Granulated,  uks.  7  11) 50 

48  White  A,  pkE.  7  II) 47 

45  E.xtra  C,  pkg.  7  II) 45 

Flour : 

■25  Pillsbury,  per  bbl 6  50 

Pillsbur.T,  per  hall  bbl 3  50 

Pillsbury.  has.  one-eighth  bbl 85 

7  00  Plants,  per  bbl 6  50 

7  25  ...Washburn's  gold  medal,  per  bbl...  6  50 

Meal : 

20-         Teliow  and  white,  7  B) 20 

28  Graham  flour,  7  11) 28 


4  00 


.Rye,  7  II) 
5  Oatmeal  (AIuou),  per  11) 5 

7  00  Oatmeal  (Alcron).   per  bbl 8  00 

135  Irish  oatmeal.  14-11)  tin 135 

10  Scotch  oatmeal,  1-11)  paper 10 

90  ..Buckwhea-t  dour,  per  bag  of  25  IB..      90 

30  Buckwheat  flour,  per  7-16  bag 30 

Potatoes : 

8  50  Potatoes,  per  bbj.' 450 

130  Potatoes,  per  basket 165 

45  Potatoes,  per  peck 60 

28  Egfrs,  per  dozen 35 


80,40,60.80 Oolong,   per   11) 30,40,60.80 

75  Oolong  (Formosa),  per  Hi 75 

30,  40,  60,  75,  SO.English  breakfast.per  It), 30,  40,  50,  75,  90 
100  H.YSon,   per   » 100 


60,  75,  $1  .lapau,    per    It). 

100  Orange  Pekoe,  per  It) i  00    '" 

125  Flowery  Pekoe,  per  II) 125 

Canned  vegetables : 

35. .Asparagus,  Oyster  Bay,  No.  3  tins,.  36 

15 Lima  beans.  No.  2  tins 15 

10 String  beans.  No.  2  tins 10 

18-      25 Strlngless  beans.  No.  2  tins 18-      25 

12,  13  &  15 Corn,  No.  2  tins 12,  13  &  15 

15,  25  &  28 Peas,  No.  2  tins 15,  25  &  28 

25-      SO Peas,  French 25-      80 

15 Pumpkin,   No.   3   tins 15 

15 Succotash,  No.  2  tins 15 

12 Tomatoes,   No.  3  tins 12 


Starch  ; 

50..Klng3ford's  sliver  gloss,  6-Tn  box.. 

90..Kliigslord's  sliver  gloss,  12-11)  box.. 
7.Kln".-fiird's  silver  gloss,  12-lh  box,  S) 
9  —  Klngsfoid's  cornstarch,  per  ID 

From    California : 

36 Apricots,  No.  3  tins 

85 White  cherries,  No.  3  tins 

85 Black  cherries.  No.  3  tins 

86 Egg  plums 

35 Green  gages 

35 Nectarines   

86 Peaches    

8.5 Baitlett  pears 

45 Apples,   gallon  cans. 


44 


15 Blackberries,  No.  2  tins 15 

18 Blueberries,  No.  2  tins 18 

20.. — Dumson  plums.  No.  2  tins 20 

80 Pineapples,  No.  2  tins 30 

Pineapples,   No.   8   cans 40 

.._. Quinces,   No.    3  cans 32 

Rasi)berrles,    No.   2  cans 30 

Strawberries.  No.  2  cans 30 

Olives. 

De  Luequcs  (bottles) 25 

Marlnees    (bottles) 25 

(lOrd'on   &  Dllwortn's    %-gal.  Jars. 

Queen    olives 125 

Queen  olives,   27  oz,   bottles 55 

Queen  olives,  pt.  bottles 40 


Crackers. 

20  Bents,    per    lb 20 

12  Butter,    per  Ih 12 

10  Soda,    per    II) 10 

85  Soda   wafers,    2  II)   can 35 

86  Milk    waters,    2    It)    can 35 

25  Bottles  Shrewsbury's  catsup 25 

(Joseph  Park  said:  "It  Is  hard  to  base  any  calculations 

this  year  on  certain  things  in  our  line,  such  as  apples, 
butter,  potatoes  and  eggs.  Eggs  are,  of  course,  higher  and 
scarcer  than  last  year  at  this  time,  owing  to  the  cold 
weather.  They  were  naturally  cheaper  In  September  than 
now.  The  apple  crop  was  almost  a  failure  last  year.  So 
were  potatoes.  I  think  that  much  good  potato  land  In 
Northern  New-York,  wl\lch  has  not  been  culcl\ated  for 
years,  will  be  tilled  this  spring.  Butter  is  of  course 
higher  than  It  was  In  September,  but  is  no  higher  than  It 
was  last  January.  We  have  to  rely  on  California  Xor 
most  of  our  canned  fruit.") 

ACKER,  MERRAIL  &  OONDIT— Prices  like  Park 
Si  TUford'a.  A  member  of  the  firm  said :  "The  McKln- 
ley  bill  has  made  no  perceptible  change  in  our  retaU 
prices  for  groceries,  canned  goods  and  flour.  Wines, 
cigars  and  liquors— the  imported  brands— have  been  raised 
by  the  bill.  Starch,  which  is  on  the  free  list,  is  higher 
now  than  in  September.  We  are  Free  Traders  here.  By 
an  arrangement,  our  prices  are  the  same  as  those  of  Messrs, 
Park  &  Tilford." 

A.    T.  ALBRO, 
Sept.  1,  1890.  Jan.  16,  1891. 

IS-      25 Salmon,  No.  1    tins 18-      25 

18-  Lobster,  No.  1    tins 18- 

30-  ;. Shrimp,  No.  1    tins 30- 

25-  Corned  beef.  No.  2    tins 25- 

Sardines. 


Hams. 

Niagara  and  Baltimore,  H) 15- 

.Bacon,  Niagara  and  Baltimore,  B)..  16- 

Smoked   beef    tongues,    each 80- 

— American  mild  cheese,  per  lb 14- 

English   dairy,   per  It) 25- 

Edam,  each 100- 


Lard. 

3-lt)  pails 35. 

5-It)  pails 55- 

10-11)  pails 100- 

Butter. 

Creamery,  per  lb 35. 

— Darlington,  ^-Ib  prints,  per  D) 40- 

Cofliee. 

Roast  Java 35. 

Roast  Mocha 36- 

Roast  Maracaibo 32- 

Unroasted  Maracaibo 27- 

Unroasted   Java 80- 

» Unroasted  Mocha 81- 

Sugar. 

Cut  loaf,  7  lb 52- 

Crushed,  7  1b 52- 

Powdered,  7  lb 50- 

Granulated,  7  lb 48- 

White  A.   7  lb 44- 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAU. 


Hour. 

Extra  C,  ,7  W -  ^  ^„ 

PlUsbury,  bbl 0  50. 

Pillsbury,   ^n  bbl 3  50 

PlUsbury,  ^  bbl... 

Yellow  and  wliite  meal,  ' 

Grabam    Flour. 

....Extra  quality,  bbl 7  00 

Extra  quality,  ^  bbl 

Extra  quality,  7  W..... 

Rye  flour,  bbl 

Rye  flour,  H  bbl 

Rye  flour,  7  Iti 

Oatmeal.    Akron,    It)  — 

Oatmeal,  Akron,  200-16  bbl 

..    ..Oatmeal,    Irish,  14-ffi  cans 1  oj' 

Oatmeal,  Scotcb,  IB  papers.. 

Flour,  buckwheat,  23-11)  bags. 


6  00 


.Eg 


Teas. 

80,  40,  50,  60,  80 Oolong    30,  40,  50   60   80 

50  75,  100 Oolong,    Formosa.. 50,^5,  1  ou 

80.      90 English  breakfast..... .--.-      <»-      90 

so,  60,  60,  80,  1  00 Young   Hyson 30,  50,  00,  80,  1  00 

4o,%,'^.^-:--.v.:-^"J?K^".^-V/^:-^:::4o,|'iS 

35  .  .Oyster  Bay  asparagus,  ^o.  3  tins...  o| 

18  .........Lima  beans.   No.  2  tins lo 

25  StringU'ss  beuns,  .No.  2  tins ^o 

15  Corn,  No.  2  tins Ig 

38  Peas  (domestic),  No.  2  tins i& 

30  Peas  (French!,  No.  2  tms dU 

18  ....Pumpkin,  No.   3   tins J-g 

18  .' Succotash.  No.  2  tins.. la 

12  Tomatoes,  No.  3  tins i- 

Catsup,  Shrewsbury. 

45  Quart  bottles 45 

25 Pint  bottles ^g 

18  ...la   pint  bottles -lo 


Fruits 
.Apricots,  No.  3  tins. 


..^i.i..,„™,  ^■-  -  •  ^'i 

iwiilte  cherries.  No.  3  tins 3S 

.Black  cherries.  No.   3  tins ^3 

....Egg  plums,  No.   2  tins 2d 

...Green  gages.  No.  2  tins ^? 

Poaches,  No.  3  tins.- -o- 

.Pears,  Bartlett,  No.  3  tins 35 

Ai^ples,    4-quart   cans au 

Damson  plums.  No.   2  cans ^g 

...Pineapples,    No.    2    cans -» 

Qviiices.    No.    3   cans 30 

Raspberries,  No.  2  cans -o 

....Strawberries,  No.  2  cans 40 

Olives. 

Crescent,    small  bottles 25 

Gordon  &  Dilworth's. 

Queen,  2-quart  jars $120 

Queen,  IVpint  jars oo 

Oraciiera. 
Bent's   water,   ID 20 


35 


•Sept.  1,  1890. 


Butter,  It) 12 

Soda,  It) 10 

..Soda  wafers,   2-11)   cans 35 

.Milk  crackers,  2-11)  cans. Jo 

JACKSON    &   00. 

Jan.  m,_  1891. 

.  .Strawberries,   No.    2   cans 35 

Quinces,  No.  3  cans 3d 

Damson  plums,  No.  3  cans 35 

.    Pineapples,  No.  2  cans 3o 

..Imported  olives,  pints 40 

Imported  olives,  quarts 60 

.Apricots,  No.  3  cans 35 

White  cherries,.  No.  3  cans 38 

Egg  plums,  No.  3  cans 3o 

Green  gages.  No.  3  cans 3o 

Peaches,  No.  3  cans 40 

!.  ..Bartlett  p';ars.   No.   3  cans 38 

Oyster  Bay  asparagus.  No.  3  cans..  35 


..litma  Beans,  No.  2  cans 
.Strhig  beans,  No.  2  cans 
18....'. Corn,  No.  2  cans 


a  50- 
11  50- 
15  50- 

7  50- 
19  00- 
14  00- 

xa  00- 


2  80- 

2  80- 

3  50- 
1  40- 


Poiatoes,  basket Ic 

--i^otacoes,  peck ^ t 

li^ggs,   ordiinary,    per  doz.. 5 

logo's,   extra  iresh 4 

Starch,     laundiT,     per    tl) 

S.arch,  corn,  per  li) 1 

Sugar,   cut,   7  It) ^ 

Sugar,    crushed,    7  IB t 

.Sugar,    White   A,   7  fl) 4 

' SiJgjr,  po)Vdered,  7  ID ! 

Sugar,    granulated,    7    IT) £ 

Sugar,    Jixtra    c,  7  H) '■ 

Coffee,    Roast    Java ; 

Coffee,  Roa^t  Mocha ; 

■] Coffee,    green    jyiocha i 

iCoITee,    Green   Java t 

100 ;...Lard,    5   and   10  tD   tins 6 

Creamery  butter i 

Butter,  Ph.ladelpnla.  3-11)  prints —  ( 

Butter,  Darlington,  =2-lt)  prints —  i 

Cheese. 

American  mild  cream,  11) ] 

Englisli  dairy,  It) i 

Edam,  each II 

Salmon,  No.  2  tins i 

Lobster,  No.  2  tins : 

Slirimps,  No.  2  tins : 

Corn  beef.  No.  2  tins ' 

Boneless  sardines,  ^-11)  tins 1 

Boneless  sardines,  ^2-lt)  tins : 

Ferris's  hams,  ID 

Raltinior,"' bacon.  It) 

Smolted  beef  tongues,  ID 

FUENITUEE. 

B.   M.    COWPER'XHVVAIT    &   CO, 
1,  1890.  Jan.  J.5,  1891. 

Lounges  *3  50- 

Couches  -  9  00- 

Solas  12  00- 

Turkish  chairs 16  00- 

Eas,y    chairs 8  00- 

Window  chairs 20  00- 

Reclining  chairs la  00- 

Settees  14  OO- 

Rattan    chairs 4  00- 

Rattan  rockers 4  00- 

Ladies'    desks 5  00- 

Wall  cabinets 3  00- 

Piano   stools 3  00- 

Whatnots  1  75- 

Mantle  mirrors 10  00- 

1 Looking  glasses 100- 

holished  top  tables 3  00- 

Marble  top  tables 3  00- 

Fancy  brass  tables 3  75- 

.  Clocks  in  marbic,  iron,  walnut  and 

cherry    150- 

Parlor    stoves 4  00- 

Extension  tables 3  00 

Sofa    tables 8  00 

Leaf  tables 175 

Side   tables 4  00 

Sideboafl'as 8  00- $300 

Cane  dining  chairs 100 

Leather  dinine  chairs 2  00 

Sofas,   couches,  lounges.   In  leather, 


7  50 
1  65 
3  50 

7  50-  $300 
90 


rep,  haircioth  and  carpet,  etc. .'.  5  00 

90  Wood  top  tables 100 

4  80  Refrigerators    5  00 

4  50  Stoves  and  ranges 5  00 

11 00-  300  Chamber    suits,     marble    and    wood 

tops    $12  00- 

23  00  '--  "'■"" 

4  50 
4  50 
1  40 
47  00- 
1  90 
6  00 
95 


^„,„    ,,„.  . 15-       18 

18720,30 .'.Peas,  No.   2  cans 18,20,30 

■20   22  25,  30. ...Peas.  French.  No.   2  cans. ...20,  22,  25,  30 

20  Succotash,  No.  2  cans ^o 

13-      15 Tomatoes.  No.   3  cans 13-      lo 

Teas : 

40,60,80 Formosa  Oolong *2' S9' S2 

60,  70,  90 English  Breakfast 50,  70,  90 

40,60,80 Young  Hy-on 40.60,80 

80  Gunpowder  80 

80  Japan    (uncolored) 80 

Flour. 

aeO  PlUsbury,   bbl 0  50 

.«75  Jones  &  CO.  s,  bbl d  7o 

20  Yellow   and    white    meal,    7   ID —      20 

30  Grahan.  flour,  7  ID 30 

30  .TT.. Rye  flour,  7  It) 30 

40  Akron  ortmefil 40 

eO  Irish  oatmeal 60 

)e  _ Scotch,  1  ID  paper 10 

30  Buckwheat    Hour,  T  as., 30 

450  Potatoes,     bbl 4  60 


Armoires    30  00 

Wardrobes    5  00 

ChilTonlers    ..-. 5  00 

Washstands   150 

160    Cabinet    folding    beds 50  00- 

Bedsteads    2  00 

Dressing    bureau 6  50 

Bedroom     tables..* 100 

Painted   suits 12  00 

Iron     bedsteads 4  00 

Looking   glasses    50 

Bureaus  3  00 

.Bed  sofas,    couches  and  lounges.  „10  00 

Upholstered  folding  cots 150 

Wood  and  canvas   cots 75 

Ladies'    work  tables 10  00 

Fancy  chairs  and  rockers 150 

Rattan   chairs  antl  rockers 4  00 

Cane  chairs  antT^oclcers 75 

Spring  beds 10.0 

Hair   matresses 10  00 

...Wool    mattresses 8  00 

I' Cotton   mattresses 6  00 

Husk    mattresses 6  00 

Straw  mattresses 100 

Excelsior  mattresses 2  00 

' Jute    top   mattresses 3  00 


9  50 
7  50 
5  50 
5  50 
95 
1  90 

4  50  ""Ipfock  top  mattresses 5  00 

5  50  Fibre    hair   mattresses 6  00 

90  Blankets  and  comfortables 100 

190  Axminster.   Moquette 2  00 

qo  Body  Brussels 100 

§5  '.'. 3  piy  ingralE 90 

(These  quotations    are   bottom   prices,    running    up    »o- 
cording  to  grade  of  goods.) 

FLINT    &,   CO— Prices   have  not   changed    anj',    and   U 


BlU    ISSUES    OF  Ali    OFF    YEAli.  17, 

there  Is  any  cliange   It  will  not  bo  felt  befoie  ncMt  fall.  capable  also  of  producing  steel  bars,  and  the  finest 

BAUMANX  Bi;us.-PrlceB  have  practically  ''<>'■  ^^^"^^^     Steel  rails  in  the  world  are  made  here  to  the  annual 
•luce  buiJtembcT  1.      Mij  slight  changes  there  have  been  ,«„,,,-.,        ^  ^  ■      ,„„        r^, 

were  downwaid.  amount  of  2,111,544  net  tons  in  1890.      There  are 

JOsjHUA  GKEGG— Prices  ol  lurnlture  have  not  vaiieu      a  score  of  American  mauuriicturcrs  who  can  pro- 

ttt  all.  duce   all  the  bar  steel  i-equii-ed   to  make  all  the 

READY-MADE  CLOTHES.  steel  plates  necessary  to  supply  the  entire  Ameri- 

HACKETT,  CAKllAKT  &  CO.— Prices  are  so  lar  reauoeo  can  demand  for  tin  plates,  and  at  least  three  such 
from  what  tliey  were  last  fall  that  no  proper  idua  or  the  mainilacturers,  Cai'iiegie,  Phipps  <fc  Co.,  of  Pitts- 
market  value  could  bo  formed.  SeUlng  away  down  on  ac-  ij^.g  .  ,|jj;  Pennsylvania  Steel  Company,  ol  Harris- 
count  ot  the  lateness  Of  the  season.  Indications  are  that  ^J  ^^^  j,^^  Welman  iron  and  Steel  Company,  of 
the  retail  pncis  next  faU  will  be  the  same  as  last  fall  ,,,  '  ,  .  ,  ,  i  J> 
Iionif-.tic  wool  cloth  has  not  yet  Increased  In  price.     Indl-      Chester,    have    given    notice    that    they    are    now 

caUons  are  that  It  will  rise  .1  trlUe  by  next  fall,  but  that  eijuipped   to  make  steel   bars.     .So   far   as  any   in- 

wlU  not  airect  the  retail  price  of  clothing.  eonality  that  may  exist  bfiweeu  tliem  and  British 

KOGEHS,  PEET   &  CO.-Prlces  have  not  changed  any  gtegi    barmakers   is   concerned,   it   is   obvious   that 

since  September  1.      The  reason  Is  that  material  for  goods  ^^        ^  ^^.j,^    ^  ^^ 

now  being  sold  was  bought  last  spring.      Material  for  next       .  .        J.        ,   ^  .     .  ,  ° 

spring's  goods  was  bought  last  summer,  and  consequently      "ars    for    tm  plates,    precisely    where    they    stand 

spring  clothing  will  not  be  any  higher.      They  are  now  buy-  vvitli  regard  to  the  making  of  other  forms  of  bar 

ing  material  for  next  fail  and  winter,   and  indications  are  steel,  so  tluit  as  they  have  competeil  triumphantly 

that  they  will  Oien  have  to  charge  from  one  to  tliree  dol-  ^^m^  foreign  producers  in  these  other  forms,  they 

lars  more  for  the  better  class  of  suits.      Cheaper  grades  „f  ^.^_^  ,^^  ^^^  .^^  ,^^^_. 

clothing,  hov.ever,  vflli  not  cliange  In  price.      Clothes  made  f     ,  .    i 

-^froni  imported  cloths  will  cost  from  5  to  7^2  per  cent  more,  ''■n  trade, 
but  the  advance  will  not  bo  felt  in  the  retail  trade  before  There  is  no  difticulty,  tlien,  aljout  the  first  and 

next  fall.  chief   step    in   the   tin-plate   industry— the   manu- 

RAYMOND  &  co-Men's  suits  l*at  were  from  812  to  ^^^^^^^  ^^  ^j^^  ^^^         j  ^.^.^^  ^^ 

$35  are  now  from  $10  tc  $30.      Boys' suits  that  were  from  ...       ^     ,  »    .       ..,    ..  ,  ,,    , 

$5  to  $14  are  now  from  $1  to  $12.      Overcoats:  thereafter  to  he  coated  with  tin,  are  to  be  rolled. 

Sept.  1.  Jan.  15  The  second  step  is  the  rolling  process,  and  that, 

^nfoo *20  00  ^'^°'  *®  already  solved,     it  was  a  principal  argu- 

20  00....I;!..." 10  00  ment  of  those  who  opposed  the  new  tin-plate  du- 

Reductioiis  ar.^  owing  to  lateness  of  season.  Some  ties  that  there  were  no  black  plates  made  here 
spring  goods  will  be  a  trifle  higher  to  dealers,  but  not  to  ^^  ^^^^  ^.^^  ^,^p^,  .^  tin-plate  making,  and  they 
consumers.  In  regard  to  foreign  goods  prices  are  being  ,  ,  ,  ■  .  ,  ,  .  , 
reduced  in  Europe,  so  that  goods  wUl  be  about  the  same  ^sked  what  was  to  be  gained  by  increasing  the 
in  tlilB  country  as  formerly.  duties  on  the  tinned  product  when  its  base  was 
• wholly    wanting.     These    persons   overlooked    the 

•VTriAT^    X^/-\Tt    riiTVr    "DT   ArpTTC!  ''^^"^   ^^^^   ^^^    ciualities  of  sheet  irou   aud   sheet 

JNUV>     r  Uxv     iiJN     irLiAiJib.  steel  used  in  the  production  of  fine  kitchen  uten- 

sUs  and  galvanized  irou  (wliicli  is  simply  a  sheet 

WHY  THE  NEW  DUTIES  WEEE  LEVIED  AND  "^  ^""  sf'^'^l  '^o'^ted  with  zinc)    were  already  made 

TTTTTAm    mTTT-.-,T   tt  . ..7-  ,    t^^ttt^  'Q   f'is  couutry  lu  enormous  quantities,  and  that 

WHAT   THEY    HAViJ   DONE.  ^,        ,     ..  , ,       ,        ,  •    ^,  ,    ,    v,  .„ 

the   plants   capable   of  making   them   needed    but 

slight  additional  equipment  to  roll  the  finer  quali- 

THBT   HAVE   BEEN    ANTIOtPATED    BY    REMARK-  ,ig,  „f  .^gj  .j^^^t^  ^^^  ^^^  .^^  pj^^g^        The  AmCri- 

ABLE  EXHIBITIONS  OF  AMERICAN  ENTER-  can  product  of  sheet  iron  and  sheet  steel  for  roof- 

PRISE   WHICH   LEAVE   NO    DOUBT    OP  ^^S,   galvanizing  and   domestic  purposes,   such  as 

THE  SUCCESSFUL  EST ABLI shmeot:  ^'^"^  '^,^'^'^"'  °*  Stovepipe,  conlhods,  breadpans,  etc.. 

already  amounts  to  quite  200,000  tons,  a  product- 

OF    THE    NEW    INDUSTRY.  ive   value   of   not   less   than   815,000,000.     Some 

With  a  singular  fatuity  the  Free-Trade  advocates  slight  changes  were  made  by  the  McKinley  Act  in 
have  consolidated  their  opposition  to  the  new  the  tariff  on  sheet  steel  for  the  especial  purpose  of 
Tariff  biU  upon  its  tin-plate  provisions.  They  rendering  our  iron  and  steel  workers  competent 
have,  however,  this  excuse  for  their  policy,  that  to  go  ahead  with  the  manufacture  of  that  partiou- 
if  they  are  forced  to  admit  that  a  new  industry  lar  quahty_  of  steel  sheet  used  for  tinned  plates, 
ol  immense  proportions  has  been  created  here  by  and  as  many  as  four  firms— Jennings  Brothers  & 
the  tariff  they  are  robbed  of  their  only  effectual  Co.,  of  Pittsburg;  the  St.  Louis  Stamping  Corn- 
argument  against  Protection.  When  the  McKin-  pany ;  P.  H.  Laufman  &  Co.,  of  ApoUo,  Penn.,  and 
ley  bill  went  into  effect  the  American  people  were  the  United  States  Iron  and  Tin-PIate  Co.,  of  Demm- 
consumers  of  737,735,029  pounds  of  tin  plates  an-  ler,  Penn.— are  now  producing  such  plates.  There 
nually,  and  not  a  single  pound  of  them  was  made  are  certainly  as  many  as  sixteen  or  twenty  other 
or  tinned  in  the  United  States.  They  had  cost  establishments  to  wliich  their  production  is  per- 
the  jieople  at  the  foreign  price  in  1890  §23,074,214,  fectly  easy,  and  which  of  course  wiU  produce  as 
and  during  the  period  of  twenty-five  years  ending  the  demand  for  them  increases, 
with  1889  the  tremendous  sum  of  §320,037,362  Getting  down  at  last  to  the  real  question  that 
had  gone  from  America  to  England  for  tin  plates,  confronts  those  who  advocate  the  policy  of  ruak- 

There  is  nothing  essentially  difficult  in  the  manu-  ing  our  own  tin  plates  and  of  saving  to  our  own 

facture   of   tin  plates.     As   a   present  mechanical  labor  and  capital  the  enormously  profitable  trade 

problem   it  is    utterly   insignificant.     It   consists,  which  has  hitherto  gone  unchallenged  to  England, 

first,  in  the  manufacture  of  bar  steel.     That,  of  it  is  found  to  consist  of  nothing  whatever  beyond 

course,  is  now  of  no  account  in  the  problem,  for  any  the  possibility  of  oui  being  able  to  coat  with  tin 

plant  that  is  capable  ol  producing  steel  rails  is  a  home  product  of  steel  already  provided  or  safely 


J  8  BIG    ISSUES    OF  AN    OFF    YEAR. 

guaranteed.     How    much    of    a    question    tliis   is  contrary,  although  we  take  fuUy  three-fourths  of 

any  one  can  judge  for  himself.     It  is  impossible  the  entire  output  of  the  Welsh  factories,  although 

to  imagine  a  simpler  process  than  the  coating  of  they  exist  only  for  tliis  market,  they  are  selling 

black  plates  with  tin.     It  is  the  work  of  thirty  their  product  here   at  a   price   greatly   in   excess 

minutes.     The  plates  are  washed  in  sulphuric  acid  of  its  fair  value,  and  the  chief  argument  of  those 

to   get   out   all  imperfections,   and   then  in   clear  American  metal-workers  who  desired  Congress  to 


water.  They  are  rublied  with  sand  to  render  their 
surfaces  smooth,  and  are  dipped  in  palm-oil,  which 
serves  as  a  flux.  Then  they  are  dipped  in  tin, 
sometimes  in  one  pot  of  metal  and  sometimes  in 
two  or  three,  and  then  they  are  allowed  to  become 
cold  and  are  rubbed  down.  Tliat  done,  the  tinneU 
plate  is  ready  to  be  assorted,  packed  and  sold. 

What  there  is  in  this  process  to  discourage 
American  ingenuity  it  is  difficult  to  perceive. 
What  there  is  in  the  way  it  has  to  be  done  to  dis- 
courage American  labor  is  quite  another  matter. 
From  beginning  to  end  it  is  a  manual  process. 
The  plant  is  simple  ,  and  wholly  inexpensive. 
There  is  a  pot  of  acid,  another  of  water,  another 
of  oil  and  two  or  three  of  metal,  a  box  of  sand, 
a  box  of  sawdust  and  a  sheepskin  rubber.  That 
is  the  sum  and  substance  of  a  tin-nlate  factory 
and  the  product  of  the  factory  is  great  or  small  in 
direct  proportion  to  the  number  of  these  sets  of 
pots  contained  within  it.  Each  set,  however, 
must  have  seven  workmen,  and  they  must  do  all 
the  work  by  hand.  They  must  soak  the  plates 
in  the  acid  by  hand.  They  must  wash  them  in 
water  by  hand.  They  must  rub  them  smooth 
and  dry  by  hand.  They  must  din  them  in  oil 
by  hand  and  in  the  metals  by  hand.  They 
must  rub  tliem  down  by  hand.  The  entire 
process  is  one  of  manual  labor.  There  is  a  ma- 
chine consisting  of  a  series  of  rollers,  which, 
after  tho  plates  are  coated,  is  used  to  make  their 
surfaces  bright  and  smooth,  but  the  function  of 
this  thing  is  to  scrape  off  the  metal,  not  to  put  it 
on.  or.  in  other  words,  to  economize  tin  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  auality  of  the  plate.  It  is  not  used 
at  all  in  the  manufacture  of  the  best  auality  of  tin 
plates  either  for  roofing  cr  domestic  purposes. 
Its  one  object  is  to  cheapen  the  manufacture  by 
reducing  the  thickness  of  the  coating  and  by  so 
much  as  it  is  used  the  plate  is  deteriorated.  But 
except  for  this  machine,  the  process  of  tin-plate 
making  is  a  process  of  human  labor.  The  prob- 
lem, as  it  really  exists,  relatesi  to  the  rate  of 
wages  paid  abroad  and  the  rate  demanded  here. 

In  Wales  aU  labor  is  cheap.  The  best  me- 
chanics receive  wages  that  no  American  employer 
would  thinii  of  proposing.  Female  labor  is  also 
extensively  used  in  the  tin-nlate  factories  and  it  is 
half  as  chelap  again  as  the  cheap  male 
labor.  It      being       perfectly       clear       that 

there  is  no  climatic  or  mechanical  dif- 
ficulty in  the  way  of  our  providing  ourselves  with 
ova  own  tin-plates,  that  we  already  produce  the 
bar  steel  and  are  equipped  to  roll  this  kind  of 
sheet  steel  as  we  now  roll  other  tinds,  and  that 
the  difficulty  relates  to  wages,  and  to  nothing 
else,  here,  then,  is  the  question :  Is  it  worth 
while  by  taxing  foreign  plates  heavily  to  give  our 
manufacturers  the  chance  to  take  our  market? 

It  is  admitted  that  there  would  be  a  fail' 
opportunity  for  controversy  here  if  we  were  obtain- 
ing as  consumers  the  benefit  of  the  cheap  labor 
of   Wales.     But   that   is   not   the   fact.     On   the 


increase  the  tin-plate  duty  eo  that  they  could  manu- 
facture here  was   that  they  would  be  able,   not- 
withstanding  their   increased    expense   in   wages, 
to  sell  at  even  lower  rates  than  the  foreign  product 
was  bringing  in  the  summer  of  1889.    Their  propo- 
sition to  the  American  people,  reduced  to  its  sim- 
plest terms,  was  this:  You  are  now  buying  360,- 
000  tons  of  foreign  tin-plate  annually,  on  which 
there  is  only  a  revenue  duty;   in  1889  you  paid 
for  this  product,  including  the  duties,   $a8,'J81,- 
668  ;  all  that  went  to  employ  foreign  labor  and  to 
sustain  foreign  industry ;   you   paid   for  the   iron 
and    steel    imported    in   those   plates   much   more 
than  you  paid  our  protected  steel-workers  for  the 
iron   and   steel   used   in   domestic   steel   rails   and 
sheet  st«el ;  you  received,  as  consumers,  no  bene- 
fits   from   the   cheap   labor   employed    in    making 
these  plates  and  tinning  them,  but  they  cost  you 
as  much  as  if  they  had  been  made  at  the  Amer- 
ican  rate   of  wages ;    your   three-quart   coffee-pot 
that  cost  you  25  cents  cost  the  British  maker  less 
than  11   cents;  your  pint  tin-cups  that  cost  you 
5  cents  cost  him  less  than  2  ;  your  twelve-quart 
dishpan    that    cost   you    35    cents    cost   him   less 
than    14 ;   he   charged  the  American  workingman 
50  cents  for  a  dinner  kettle  that  cost  Mm  only 
12   cents,  and  these  comparisons  fairly  illustrate 
the  difference  throughout  the  tin-plate  trade  be- 
tween what  his  goods,  cost  him  and  what  he  got 
tor    them    from    the    American    public.     We    ask 
you,    then,    that   a   high   tariff   be   levied    on   his 
products,  and  we  wUl  make  such  products  here ; 
we   will   increase   the   American    consumption   of 
American  iron-ore  by  1,000,000  tons  annually,  of 
limestone  300,000  tons,  of  coal  and  coke  2,000,000 
tojis,   of  pigiron   400,000   tons,   of  lead   5,500,000 
pounds,  of  tallow  and  oil  13,000,000  pounds,  of 
sulphuric  acid  40,000,000  pounds,  and  of  lumber 
12,000,000   feet;   we   will  employ   35,000  Ameri- 
can  workingmen,   and  pay   them   $20,000,000   in 
wages,  and  we  will  sell  you  tinware  cheaper  than 
you  get  it  to-day;  we  will  do  this  substantially 
within  a  period  of  six  years  from  the  date  of  the 
new  tariff,  or,   if  we   fail,  you   can  take  the  in- 
creased  duty  away ;  it  can  do  you  no  great  harm 
meanwhile,  for  the  foreign  tin-plate-maker  is  al- 
ready charging  you  prices  so  much  greater  than 
his  expenses  that  he  can  have  no  honest  pretext 
for     a     further     increase,     and     if     he     makes 
a     further     increase     it     will     prove     all     the 
more    conclusively    that    we     should     build    up 
this  industry  at  home,  and  subject  those  who  sup- 
ply its  product  to  that  same  form  of  competition 
which  has  reduced  the  price  of  galvanized  iron 
sheets  from  7  3-4  cents  a  pound  in  I'SSO  to  4  1-4 
cents  in  1889,  of  'out  nails  from  $3  68  per  keg  ia 
1880  to  $1  60  in  April,  1891  :  of  steel  raUs   from 
$67  25  per  ton  in  1880  to  $29  25  in  1889,  $31  75 
in  1890,  while  all  this  time,  and,  indeed,  for  fifty 
years,  the  price  of  tin-plate  has  remained  at  about 
the  same  figures,  $6  in  May,  1880,  $4  25  in  June, 
18,89,  $5  05  in  June,  1891. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AK    OFF    YEAJt. 


19. 


Vheae  wpre  tlie  arguments  that  convinced  Con- 
gress of  tlie  wisdom  of  transforming  the  tin-plate 
■duty  from  a  revenue  duty  to  a  protective  duty. 
■Certainly,  if  tlie  desirahility  of  protection  can 
1)c  admitted  at  all,  it  must  lx>  in  these  circuni- 
«tanccj.  The  facts  beinj];  eoi-.ceded.  it  U  possible 
to  hold  with  regard  to  them  only  one  of  two  posi- 
tions—either that  the  duty  should  be  raised  or 
the  American  rate  of  wages  should  be  levelled  to 
the  European  scale.  The  principles  which  apply 
•here  apply  in  all  ti'ades,  and  if  it  is  proper  to 
abandon  the  tin-plate  industry  to  foreigners  merely 
because,  paying  lower  wages,  they  can  produce 
cheaper,  though  we,  who  take  thrce-fourtlis  of 
their  produce,  obtain  no  benefit  from  their  cheaper 
production,  then,  of  course,  every  other  industry 
•sliould  be  abandoned  for  the  same  reason,  or  wo 
•should  accept  tlie  conditions  of  their  free  com- 
petiticu  and  reduce  our  labor  with  our  tariff. 
■Congress  did  r.ot  take  the  fiee-trade  view.  It 
raised  the  tariff,  providing  that  the  new  rates 
sliould  go  into  effect  on  July  1,  1891,  and  that 
if  by  July  1,  1897,  the  product  of  domestic  plates 
in  any  year  between  those  dates  has  not  equalled 
•one-third  the  amouut  of  the  plates  imported  in 
any  year  bctwee:i  those  dates,  tin-plate  on  October 
1  following  should  go  on  the  free  list.  Nothing 
could  be  fairer  than  this,  and  its  fairness  will  be 
admitted  by  such  Free-Tradcrs  as  are  not  essen- 
tially incapable  of  seeing  more  than  one  side  of 
a  question.  It  simply  affords  American  metal, 
■workers  the  chance  to  see  what  they  can  do. 

The  new  tariff  has  not  yet  gone  into  effect,  but 
already  the  free-trade  press  is  crying  out  with  a 
funny  air  of  triumph,  and  as  if  the  whole  con- 
troversy as  to  our  power  of  production  under  the 
new  law  had  lieen  settled  before  it  Tias  been  so 
much  as  opened,  that  no  American  tin-plates  are 
now  bjing  made  except  for  the  purpose  of  political 
«how.  Tlu3  is  not  true,  but  what  if  it  were? 
If  the  challenge  thrown  out  l)y  the  new  law  is 
accepted,  and  if  the  Free-Traders  are  willing  to 
stand  or  fall— as  certainly  the  Protectionists  are— 
upon  tihe  issue,  it  can  scarcely  l>e  pretended  that 
the  time  to  test  the  law's  cfHcacy  is  before  it 
has  gone  into  operation !  The  proper  time  is 
fixed  in  the  law— on  July  1,  1807.  If  by  that 
time  nothing  has  been  accomplished,  Protectionists 
■wUl  be  compelled  to  admit  that  something  has 
gone  wrong. 

They  are  not  alarmed,  however,  at  the  prospect. 
American  enterprise  has  already  accomplished  a 
remarkable  work.  To  make  light  of  it  is  to  be 
silly,  to  deny  it  is  to  be  dishonest,  and  to  claim 
that  American  skill  is  unequal  to  the  task  is  to 
insult  the  most  inventive  and  successfully  indus- 
trial nation  on  the  globe.  American  tin  plates 
are  already  selling  in  the  open  market— not  in 
large  quantities,  of  oouxse,  nor  in  great  varieties, 
but  sufficiently  to  satisfy  their  manufacturers  that 
they  can  easily  and  profitably  produce  at  current 
prices.  Several  of  the  manufacturers  now  at  work 
are  themselves  enormous  consumers  of  tin  plates, 
a  fact  which  has  stimulated  them  to  make  haste 
in  establishing  their  works.  They  are  themselves 
using  their  entire  product,  and  would  do  so  were 
it  many  times  greater  than  it  now  is,  but  this  of 
course  does  not  affect  the  practical  point  that  they 


are  commercially  producing.  Such  establishments 
are  the  St.  Louis  Stamping  Company,  NortoTi 
Brothers,  of  Chicago,  and  Somers  Brothers,  of 
Brooklyn,  all  of  wliom  are  now  tinning  plates  and 
Imilding  mills  to  roll  their  black  plates  from  the 
steel  bars.  The  United  States  Iron  and  Tin  Plate 
Company,  of  Denmmler,  Penn.,  P.  H.  Laufman  <fc 
Co.,  of  Apollo,  Penn.,  Fleming,  Hamilton  &  Co., 
of  Pittsburg,  Marshall  Brothers  <fc  Co.,  of  Phila- 
delphia, and  the  large  importing  house  of  N.  <fe  G. 
Taylor,  in  the  same  city,  have  all  erected  plants 
and  are  now  successfully  producing  for  the  open 
market.  That  their  output  is  small  in  comparison 
with  the  countrj''s  demand  goes  without  saying, 
but  in  -view  of  all  the  circumstances  it  is  encour- 
agingly large.  To  suppose  that  these  firms,  all  of 
whom"  are  wealthy  and  long-established  metal- 
workers, are  going  into  this  business  for  fun  or 
to  gratify  Mr.  Jlclvinley  and  the  Repul)lican  Con- 
gress is  sheer  idiocy.  Tliey  propose  to  make  money, 
and  for  that  em!  are  embarking  or  preparing  to 
embark  in  large  expenditures  of  capital  for  rolling 
mills  and  tinning  plants. 

The  work  that  has  been  done  by  N.  &  G.  Tay- 
lor, who  are  particularl.v  mentioned  here  only  be- 
cause of  their  relation  to  tlie  tin-plate  trade  as 
great  importers,  sutliciently  illustrat^-s  what  each 
of  the  other  American  producers  has  accomphshed 
and  is  making  ready  to  accomplish.  The  house 
of  the  Jlessrs  Taylor  is  ninety  years  old,  rich, 
most  thoroughly  respected,  conservative  and  suc- 
cessful. It  has  been  importing  tin  plates  for  the 
oi)en  market  for  more  than  half  a  century,  and 
does  a  business  in  them  to-day  of  more  than 
81,000,000  a  year.  There  is  nothing  about  the 
manufacture  of  tin  plates  that  to  the  Messrs.  Tay- 
lor is  a  TOystery,  for  the  great  bulk  of  their  im- 
portations is  made,  that  is,  rolled  and  tinned,  ac- 
cording to  formulas  which  they  have  themselves 
prepared  at  their  Pliiladelphia  estalilishment. 
Their  Welsh  agents,  therefore,  are  simplj-  mechan- 
ics who  put  into  effect  what  the  Messrs.  Taylor 
by  careful  experiment  have  found  to  \ie  the  best 
methods  of  rolUng  the  steel  and  coating  it.  They 
now  propose  to  give  themselves  the  benefit  of 
their  own  intelligent  devices,  and  to  become  Amer- 
ican manufacturers  rather  than  foreign  importers. 
They  have  already  erected  one  complete  tinning 
plant,  from  which  they  are  turning  into  their 
stock  about  forty  boxes  (112  sheets  to  the  box) 
of  20x28  roofing  tin  plates  daily.  They  are  con. 
structing  a  second  plant  to  duplicate  this  product, 
and  are  rapidly  pushing  forward  plans  to  erect  a 
mill  wherein  they  wiU  make  their  own  steel  plates 
and  tin  them.  They  are  perfectly  satisfied  of  their 
ability  to  make  all  grades  of  bright  or  dull  plates 
at  prices  below  the  ruling  prices  when  the  Mc- 
Kinley  biU  went  into  effect.  The  statements  of 
such  a  firm  as  this  are  a  sufficient  answer  to  the 
stupid  jeers  of  the  Free-Trade  organs,  and  encour- 
aging if  not  conclusive  evidence  that  the  new  law 
is  wise,  that  it  wiU  result  in  the  saving  each  year 
of  at  least  S.30,000,000  to  American  labor  and  to 
American  producers  of  steel,  lead,  coal,  lumber  and 
other  commodities,  and  that  it  will  as  surely  re- 
duce the  ])rice  of  tin  plates  as  similar  laws  have 
reduced  the  price  of  other  forms  of  steel. 

L.   E.   Q. 


PROTECTION  AND  SILVER. 


UX-COJSraRESSMAJV     HOMB'S     COMMENTS,     ON     CUliBENT 

QUESTIONS. 


FARMERS   AND   THE   TARIFF. 


A  WOED  OF  EXPLANATION. 


EBOTECTION    rOB.    US    THE    SCIBS^OE    OF    SELP- 

KEIEEINCE— ROSWELL    G.    HORR    OUTLINES 

HIS    PLANS    AND    PURPOSES. 

It  may  be  proper  for  me  to  outline  Driefly  the 
work  I  am  going  to  try  to  do  lor  The  Tribune 
the  coming  year.  My  purpose  is  to  write  a  series  of 
articles  upon  the  various  phases  of  the  economic 
system  known  as  the  American  system  of  levying 
tariff  duties. 

My  aim  will  be,  among  other  things,  to  give  a 
plain,  honest  statement  of  the  history  of  tariff 
legislation  in  this  country  from  the  foundation 
of  the  Government  down  60  the  present  time ;  also 
to  present  an  accurate  statement  of  how  the  sev- 
eral tariff  bills  have  affected  the  business  of  the 
country,  and  how  they  have  worked  in  the  cases 
of  actual  application.  I  shall  also  answer  some 
of  tlie  falsehoods  which  so  confused  the  public 
mind  during  the  last  campaign.  In  doing  this,  per- 
mit me  to  state  that  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  the 
doctrine  of  Protection ;  that  I  have  great  admirar 
tion  for  what  I  believe  it  has  done  heretofore  in 
building  up  the  vast  industries  of  the  United 
States,  and  great  faith  in  what  it  will  do  in  the 
future  for  our  common  country,  if  carefully  and 
wisely  followed  to  its  logical  and  practical  results. 
My  aim  will  be  to  state  the  position  of  both 
parties,  faii'ly  and  accurately,  and  in  language 
that  cannot  be  misunderstood. 

My  whole  life  has  been  spent  in  work  of  some 
kind,  but  more  especially  among  men  who  till 
the  soil  and  manufacture  the  goods  produced  in 
this  Nation.  I  have  visited  and  personally  in- 
spected more  than  two  hundred  different  shops, 
factories  and  mines  in  twenty-five  different  States 
of  the  Union ;  have  examined  into  their  workings, 
their  needs  and  their  possibilities;  and  have,  in 
the  last  six  years,  travelled  over  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  miles  among 
the  farms  and  shops  of  this  country.  I  ]iave 
endeavored  to  learn  something  of  the  condition 
of  the  farmer,  the  mechanic  and  the  laboring 
men,  who  constitute  the  great  bulk  of  the  popula- 
tion of  this  Nation.  I  am  fully  satisfied  that 
the  men  who  labor  in  the  United  States  to-day, 


wihether  they  work  on  farms,  in  shops  or  factories, 
or  in  mines,  are  the  best  fed,  the  best  clothed,  the 
best  schooled,  and  of  course  the  best  paid  of  any 
men  doing  similar  work  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 
I  believe  that  nowhere  else  in  the  world  is  labor 
more  honored  and  more  dignified  than  it  is  here 
in  the  United  States. 

We  should  all  strive  to  keep  this  ascendancy, 
and  to  improve  the  condition  of  the  farmer  and 
artisan  in  every  way  possible.  To  do  this  that 
system  must  be  the  best  which  promises  the 
largest  and  most  constant  employment  for  all 
our  people,  and  which  insures  them  the  most 
ample  pay  for  such  employment.  Plenty  of  work 
and  good  wages  will  always  insure  prosperity  to 
any  people.  Good  prices  for  the  products  of  the 
farm  is  only  another  form  of  stating  good  wages 
for  the  farmers. 

My  opinion  is  also  very  clear  that  the  fiiuanoial 
and  business  progress  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
last  thirty  years,  is  without  a  parallel  among 
the  nations  of  the  world.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  wonderful  growth  and  prosperity  are"  due 
largely  to  our  sj'Stem  of  so  levying  duties  as  to 
take  care  of  our  own  country,  and  so  as  to  build 
up  our  own  industries,  and  protect  the  men  who 
work  for  a  living  on  our  own  farms,  in  our  own 
shops  and  factories,  and  in  our  multitude  of 
mines.  Now,  11  it  shall  turn  out,  upon  careful 
examination,  that  our  present  system  of  protective 
duties  has  led  up  to  a  greater  growth  of  our 
entire  country  and  to  more  general  prosperity 
among  our  jieople  than  anywhere  else  blesses  the 
human  race,  then  we  wiU  all  be  slow  to  seek  a 
change  or  demand  any  untried  experiment. 

I  am  not 'Unmindful  of  the  fact  that  I  enter 
upon  this  work  at  a  time  when  the  cohorts  of 
Free  Trade  are  flushed  with  a  temporary  victory, 
when  the  Free  Traders  of  the  Old  World  are  joining 
theii'  cry  of  anguish  over  tlieii'  prospective  loss  of 
our  markets  to  the  shouts  of  their  friends  and 
allies  on  this  side  of  the  ocean.  Yet,  believing  as 
I  do  most  firmly  and  sincerely,  that  to  adopt 
the  theories  of  the  foreign  manufacturers 
and  their  importing  agents  in  this  country 
would  bring  disaster  to  our  own  people  and  end 
in  ruin  to  the  business  interests  of  the  United 
States ;  I  say^  believing  this,  my  time  and  energy 
shall  be  devoted  to  a  persistent  effort  to  avert 
such  a  catastrophe. 

It  is  also  proposed  that  I  shall  answer  any  ques- 
tions, propounded    honestly,   upon    this    subject. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


21 


Permit  me  to  remind  tlie  readers  of  The  Tril)une 
how  much  easier  it  is  to  ask  questions  tlian  it  is 
to  answer  tl\em  on  all  subjects.  You,  however, 
have  this  promise  from  me :  when  you  ask  me  a 
question  that  I  cannot  answer,  my  first  effort 
will  be  to  look  up  the  subject  an<I  try  and  give 
you  a  truthful  reply  just  a.s  soon  as  my  informa- 
tion will  permit;  and,  it  I  find  myself  unable  to 
get  the  desired  information,  then  I  will  frankly 
say  so  and  admit  that  1  do  not  know.  In  that 
way  you  will  always  get  the  best  information  I 
can  obtain  upon  every  subject  iniiuired  about. 

A  word  more  to  the  readers  of  The  Tribune.  1 
am  called  to  this  new  field  of  labor  suddenly  and 
h.ave|neecssarily  many  engagements  on  my  hands 
in  the  lecture  field,  where  I  liave  been  laboring 
for  the  past  five  years.  Some  of  these  it  is  im- 
possible to  cancel.  If  there  should  l)e  seeming 
delay  in  some  of  my  replies  to  your  inquiries  you 
will  understand  that  lor  a  few  weeks  I  am  com- 
pelled to  do  double  work,  but  that  as  soon  as 
former  engagements  can  be  cancelled  or  filled,  then 
this  work  shall  receive  my  whole  time  and  best 
endeavor. 

Permit  mc  also  to  express  the  hope  that  the 
relations  now  entered  upon  between  the  readers 
of  The  Tribune  and  myself  may  prove  beneficial 
to  us  both  One  thing  is  certain,  we  all  have  the 
same  object  in  view,  and  that  is  to  render  pros- 
perous and  happy  the  entire  people  of  our  country, 
a  country  wliioh  the  Republican  party  did  so  much 
to  save  during  the  eventful  years  between  1860 
and  1866,  and  has  since  done  so  much  to 
strengthen  and  buUd  up,  securing  for  it  a  sound 
currency,  the  best  of  credit  at  home  and  abroad 
and  the  most  marvellous  industrial  growth  ever  at- 
tained among  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  Let  us 
then  in  the  outset  consecrate  ourselves  to  that 
work  which  shall  promise  to  do  the  most  and  the 
best  for  the  United  States  of  America. 

E.  G.  HOER. 


GIVE  THE  TARIFF  A  FAIR  TRIAL. 

TAKE  NO  BACKWARD  STKP  TOWAiU)  FREE  TRADE 

Of  course  the  recent  elections  in  this  country 
will  be  claimed  as  a  verdict  of  the  people  against 
the  Mclvinley  bill.  We  insist  that  no  such  ver- 
dict has  been  given. 

The  result  came  from  no  fair,  honest  discussion  of 
that  measure.  It  was  brought  about  by  a  system 
of  trickery  that  would  make  a  "  heathen  Cliinee " 
blush,  and  by  a  resort  to  lying  that  was  truly 
monumental.  The  country  was  flooded  with  lists 
of  advanced  prices  for  goods  that  were  then,  and 
are  now,  selling  at  old  prices;  and  statements 
were  made  in  the  press  and  on  the  stump  as  to 
items  contained  in  the  bill  which  were  simply 
barefaced  falsehoods.  The  free-trade  champions 
have  never  been  noted  lor  their  love  of  truth, 
but  their  methods  and  statements  in  the  last 
campaign  were  simply  infamous.  This  is  well 
known  to  the  Republican  members  of  the  present 
House.  Hence  we  say  give  the  new  Tariff  bill 
a  fair  trial. 

That  bill  was  drawn  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  clearly  stated  utterances  of  our  National 
platform,  on  which  was  fought  the  battle  of  1888. 


That  contest  was  S'luarely  won  on  that  well-de- 
fined issue.  At  that  time  the  question  was  ex- 
amined from  a  purely  National  point  of  view,  af- 
fected by  no  side  issues,  by  no  local  matters  or 
personal  complications.  We  secured  at  that  time 
the  deliberate  decision  of  the  people,  after  the 
subject  had  been  treated  entirely  as  a  National 
one.  It  was  discussed  and  disposed  of  from  a  purely 
National  point  of  view.  So  we  repeat  again,  give 
the  measure  a  fair  tiial.  Let  the  people  see  how  it 
works. 

ir  under  its  provisions  new  industries  spring 
up  and  existing  industries  are  awakened  to  new 
life,  if  the  crops  of  the  farmer  yield  him  better 
returns,  and  the  laboring  men  of  the  country  are 
furnished  with  more  constant,  well-paid  employ- 
ment—in short,  if,  with  this  bill  fairly  enforced, 
come  better  times  and  more  widespread  prosperity, 
then  no  sensible  man  will  ask  for  its  repeal.  If  it 
does  not  work  well  it  can  be  easily  changed 
so  soon  as  the  e.>cperiraent  shows  bad  results.  But 
the  only  way  to  find  out  how  it  will  work  is  to 
give  it  an  houe.st,  fair  trial. 

Of  course  this  method  will  not  please  the  man- 
ufacturers of  the  old  world  or  their  allies,  the 
"  revenue  reformers, "  on  this  side  of  the  ocean. 
They  fear  that  it  wiU  work  well,  and  that  fear  will 
prompt  them  to  seek  its  repeal  before  any  chance 
is  had  to  test  its  practical  working.  It  is  not  the 
well-being  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  that 
these  foreigners  seek  to  promote.  They  desire  to 
get  possession  of  the  marfcets  of  tliis  country  sim- 
ply to  help  themselves ;  by  no  means  for  the  pur- 
pose of  aiding  us. 

Remember  that  it  is  not  the  first  time  that  Re- 
publicans have  been  called  upon  to  stand  by  their 
colors  when  the  surroundinss  looked  dark.  Im- 
mediately after  the  first  battle  of  BuU  Run  the 
very  men,  both  here  and  in  Great  Britain,  who  are 
now  so  full  of  joy  were  exultant  at  our  defeat 
and  called  for  an  abandonmcint  of  our 
cause.  Yes,  they  even  declared  that  the 
contest  had  been  decided  against  the  Union. 
Abraham  Lincoln  answered  their  triumphant 
yeU  by  calling  lor  300,000  more  men. 
The  future  historian  will  write  it  down  that  what 
seemed  a  terrible  disaster  at  the  time  was  really 
a  blessing  in  disguise.  After  five  days,  of  fearful 
fighting  in  the  Wilderness,  almost  any  other  Gen- 
eml  than  Grant  would  have  advised  a  retreat,  or 
at  least  the  digging  of  trenches  and  building  ol 
fortifications.  Not  so  with  this  matchless  soldier. 
His  order  was :  "  Let  the  men  rest  to-night ;  wg 
go  forward  to-morrow."     And  so  they  did. 

Once  the  country  went  wild  on  the  Greenback 
craze.  The  elections  went  badly,  and  the  oredi* 
and  prosperity  of  the  Nation  seemed  to  be  threat- 
ened. The  enemy  said  then :  "  You  RepubUcana 
must  yield ;  must  back  down ;  your  resumption 
business  will  ruin  the  Nation."  Some  timid  men 
in  our  own  ranks  recommended  the  heeding  of 
such  ad\T.ce,  but  wiser  counsels  prevailed.  Out 
■  party  was  right  and  kept  steadily  on  in  the  line 
of  duty.  Resumption  came,  and  with  it  not  ruin 
but  prosperity. 

So  say  we  now.  Protection  is  right.  It  has 
done  wonders  for  the  building  up  of  this  country  i 
it  can  do  much  more  in  the  future.     The  MoKia- 


23 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


ley  bill  is  a  protective  measure,  drawn  with,  great 
care  and  ability,  studied,  revised  and  amended  by 
able  men.  Its  lines  all  run  in  the  right  direction. 
It  was  made  for  the  purpose  and  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  building  up  our  own  country ; 
to  help  the  business  of  our  own  peo- 
ple. That  is  what  the  men  who  framed 
that  bill  believed  it  would  do.  I  agree  with  them. 
The  records  of  the  past  teach  that  such  must  be 
the  reisult.  To  do  all  these  things,  the  bill  must 
be  put  into,  operation,  and  ample  time  must  be 
given  to  develop  its  merits. 

Great  industries  do  not  spring  up  in  a  day. 
Ajmple  factories  for  the  making  of  such  an  article 
as  tin-plate  cannot  be  built  in  one  night.  The 
only  test  of  such  a  measure  is  to,  be  found  in  its 
practical  workings.  So  give  this  bill  a  fair, 
honest,  faithful  trial.  It  is  no  time  now  to  be 
taUiiing  even  about  amendments.  To  any  free- 
trade  Democrats  wlio  insist  upon  tinkering  with 
this  bill  at  the  present  session,  one  reply  only 
shoMld  be  made.  Tell  them  to  keep  quiet,  to  take 
a  rest.  The  bill  as  it  is  can  be  defended,  if  it 
shall  need  any  defence.  The  falsehoods  and  mis- 
representations about  its  provisions  can  and  will 
be  explained.  When  understood  it  will  be  found 
that  no  bill  was  ever  enacted  more  in  the  inter- 
est of  our  entire  people.  Believing  that  the 
measure  is  a  good  one,  let  the  word  be  passed 
among  the  entire  rank  and  file :  "  I  propose  to 
fight  it  out  on  this  line  if  it  takes  all  summer." 
E.  G.  HvORE. 


THE    ALLIANCE   IN   DANGER. 


A  WORD  or  TIMKLY  WASNING  TO  SINCEEE 
FAEIIEES. 


CONCENTRATION  UPON  THE  OBJECTS  FOR  WHICH 

THE    FARMERS'    ALLIAaSlCB    WAS    ACTUiAIJjT 

ORGANIZED    ABSOLUTET    NECESSAiRT. 

I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  to  the  men  who 
are  just  now  controlling  the  Farmers'  AlHanco 
and  other  similar  organizations  in  the  United 
States. 

No  man  is  more  ready  than  I  am  myself  to  admit 
that,  for  a  few  years  past,  the  men  who  live  by 
tUling  the  soil  have  been  in  serious  trouble 
throughout  the  entire  coimtry.  The  price  of  farm 
products  has  been  low.  ruinously  low.  Fanners 
have  struggled  long  and  hard  to  get  ahead  in  the 
world.  Each  year  hasi  found  them  no  better  off 
than  the  year  before.  Indeed,  in  many  cases, 
they  have  run  behind,  in  spite  of  all  they  could 
do.  Year  after  year  came  one  disaster  after 
another,  until  they  began  to  ■lespair  of  ever  get- 
ting relief.  IN'o  wonder  tnat,  linally,  they  began 
to  look  about  to  see  if  they  could  not  find  some 
remedy  for  their  feai'ful  condition.  Upon  doing 
so,  they  found  the  country  full  of  organizations 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  their  mem- 
bers and  their  spoeial  interests.  Many  of  these 
combinations  s?cmed  prosperous:  some  of  them 
showed  grea.t  power  and  m.arvellous  results.  Why 
could  not  farmers  do  what  others  did  ?     What  rea- 


son could  any  one  urge  against  their  malnngi  the 
attempt?  Hence  sprang  up  the  Farmers'  Alli- 
ance, the  Patrons  of  Husbandry,  and  kindred  or- 
ganizations, all  over  the  country.  They  were- 
all  born  of  a  deep  sense  "f  actual  wrong,  whiclv 
farmers  believed,  they  were  suffering  from  the 
hands  of  organized  capital  and  a  favored  tew ; 
and  they  started  out  with  the  full  determination 
to  right  that  wrong  at  all  hazard.  The  feeling 
wasi  natural,  and  tlie  effort  to  benefit  their  con- 
dition  was  commendable. 

These  various  organizations  grew  with  great  ra- 
pidity, and  seemed  to  be  animated  bj'  one  single- 
purpose,  that  of  securing  relief  for  real  distress.  In 
the  outset  the  leaders  of  each  and  ever.y  one  of  thenb 
declared  openly  and  repeatedly  that  they  were- 
going  to  unite  with  no  political  party  and  would 
be  controlled  in  the  interest  of  no  political  as- 
pirants. They  further  declared  that  they  should 
support  for  office  only  .such  men  as  were  pledged 
to  support  their  needed  measures,  men  whom 
they  believed  were  •  in  sympathy  with  the- 
objects  they  had  in  view,  and  the 
members  of  no  existing  party  would 
be  shown  any  preference.  In  the  early  days  of 
their  organizations  they  seemed  sincere  in  sucli 
utterances.  But  the  moment  their  strength  be- 
came apparent  from  increasing  numbers,  men  be- 
gan to  seek  membership  from  purely  poUtieal 
motives.  Then  came  the  dangerous  point  in  their 
existence.  The  cemetery  of  dead  organizations 
of  this  kind  in  the  past  is  fuU  of  graves,  on  the 
headstones  of  which  is  written  one  and  the  same- 
inscription,  "Died  of  political  intrigue." 

Just  the  moment  the  people  of  the  country  ever 
come  to  believe  that  such  an  organization  is  sim- 
ply an  annex  of  any  political  party,  its  purposes- 
begin  to  be  questioned,  its  integrity  becomes 
doubtful ;  it  loses  the  sympathy  of  honest  frienda 
and  its  power  for  doing  good  begins  to  be  weak- 
ened if  it  does  not  cease  altogether.  Indeed, 
worse  than  that,  it  wUl  soon  be  looked  upon  with 
suspicion  for  having  abandoned  the  good  work  it 
started  out  to  perform,  and  for  having  become  the 
tool  of  mere  political  tricksters. 

I  have  already  admitted  that  there  is  a  plenty 
of  good,  honest  work  for  such,  organizations. 
Great  good  might  be  accompUshed  bj-  them  if 
they  worked  simply  with  an  ej'e  single  to  tlie  busi- 
ness on  hand.  The  recent  action  of  the  Farmers' 
AUianoe  in  stepping  aside  from  its  regular  work 
and  passing  resolutions,  at  the  solicitation  of 
partisan  leaders,  against  the  passage  of  the  Elec- 
tions bill,  illustrates  exactly  what  I  mean.  That 
is  a  bill  for  the  simple  purpose  of  securing  to  all 
the  workingmeu  of  this  country  their  constitu- 
tional right  to  have  a  voice  in  the  election  of  our 
Federal  office-holders.  Pray  what  is  there  in  such 
a  measure  that  should  call  for  a  protest  from  a 
body  of  men  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  benefit- 
ing the  cause  of  agriculture  ?  What  has  that  bill 
t«  do  with  the  price  of  grain  or  the  transportation! 
of  hogs  and  cattle  ?  How  does  that  reach  the 
■no.M^er  of  dairy  products  or  the  payment  of  farm. 
mortgages  f  In  what  way  does  that  bill  tend  -to 
create  monopolies  and  give  wealth  an  undue  ad- 
vantage over  men  who  live  by  tilUng  their  little 
farms?     Why  should  a  body  of  men    congie^ja^i 


bk;   issues  of  an  off  yemi. 


23 


for  the  special  purpose  of  looking  after  the  Inter. 
ests  and  well-being  of  farmers  turn  aside  from  ita 
regular  work  to  grant  a  request  coming  from  a 
set  of  men  who  are  simply  trying  to  stifle  at  the 
polls  the  voice  ol'  more  than  one  milUon  legal 
citizens  who  Live  by  tilling  the  soil? 

Such  exhibitions  of  partisan  zeal  as  that  must 
shake  the  confidence  of  thinking  farmers  in  the 
real  object  of  their  delegates,  and,  in  the  end, 
must  lead  up  to  disintegration  and  death,  because 
the  great  mass  of  our  farmers  have  been  noted  in 
the  past  for  their  love  of  fair  play  and  honest 
elections. 

Another  point.  Tlie  farmers  of  the  United 
States  have  also  heretofore  been  distinguished  for 
their  conservatism,  for  being  level  headed.  When 
other  men  became  excited  and  unreasonable,  they 
kept  cool.  When  otlier  men  rushed  olf  into 
"isms"  and  side-shows,  the  farmers  kept  straight, 
ahead  in  old  and  well-beaten  paths.  When  the 
country  was  in  danger  from  civil  foes,  they  were 
self-sacrificing  and  patriotic.  When  some  men 
started  out  with  hair-brained  schemes  for  the 
abolition  of  poverty  and  the  destruction 
of  values,  they  remained  true  to  the  tradition  of 
the  fathers  and  stood  by  the  experience  of  the 
ages.  Of  such  a  record  our  farmers  have  reason 
to  be  proud.  The  danger  now  seems  to  be  that 
their  new  organizations  will  fall  un<ler  the  con- 
trol of  mere  schemers  and  got  into  disrepute  by 
being  run  in  the  interest  of  projects  which  have 
no  foundation  on  business  principles  and  which 
lack  the  approval  of  ordinary-  common-sense.  All 
such  schemes  lead  in  the  end  unerringly  to  finan- 
cial disaster.  As  an  example  of  a  body  of  men 
united  for  the  sole  purpose  of  benefiting  their 
members,  take  the  organization  of  Locomotive  En- 
gineers. Tlieir  history  shows  how  possible  it  is 
for  men  co  work  together  with  a  single  purpose 
and  still  avoid  all  entangling  alliances  and  dis- 
astrous combinations.  No  one  ever  accused  them 
of  favoring  any  political  party,  and  with  perhaps 
a  single  exception,  they  have  never  been  induced 
to  attempt  the  impossible.  Tliey  wield  a  tre- 
mendous influence  for  theii  own  good,  and  can 
do  more  to  protect  a  member  of  their  society  from 
outrage  and  wrong  than  any  similar  organiza- 
tion on  the  face  of  the  earth.  But  they  keep 
out  of  the  hands  of  political  tricksters,  and  never 
allow  themselves  to  be  led  away  by  extremists 
who  teach  that  great  business  questions  can  be 
best  solved  and  answered  by  brute  force. 

One  danger  which  seems  to  me  at  this  moment 
to  be  threatening  the  Farmers'  Alliance  is  this : 
They  are  liable  to  be  carried  away  by  a  lot  of 
visionary  schemes  which  can  never  bring  the 
relief  promised  and  which  must  in  the  very 
nature  of  things  end  in  failure.  As  an  example, 
take  the  idea  that  the  general  Government  should 
go  into  the  banking  business,  should  loan  money 
on  farm  mortgages  and  supply  the  borrowing  de- 
sires of  the  people  with  cash  at  2  per  cent  a 
year  !  Why  charge  them  any  interest  ?  Wliy 
not  include  chattel  mortgages,  as  well  as  those 
on  land  ?  People  having  no  lands  to  mortgage 
often  feel  the  need  of  ready  cash  quite  as  keenly 
as  the  men  owning  farms.  Pray,  why  should  not 
the  Government  relieve  their  pressing  wants  and 


supply  them,  too,  with  money  at  a  cheap  rate  of 
interest.^  What  earthly  objection  can  there  be 
to  the  General  Government  :'.lso  starting  pawn- 
shops on  its  own  account  ?  A  pawn-shop  at  2  per 
cent  a  year  would  be  a  novel  luxury !  If  not, 
why  not  ?  Some  one  might  ask  wliere  is  the 
money  coming  from  to  carry  on  all  this  new  busi- 
ness ?  Is  it  from  increased  taxation  ?  No.  By 
selling  the  public  domain?  No.  Who  or  what 
is  this  General  Government,  any  way '  In  this 
Country  the  General  Government  is  simply  the 
people,  you  and  I,  all  of  us  taken  together.  The 
men  who  manage  the  General  Government  are  our 
servants,  not  our  masters.  The  people  make  and 
unmake  them  at  their  own  sweet  wOl.  These 
officers  of  the  Government  have  no  money  to  loaa 
on  bonds  and  mortgages,  as  such  officers.  All 
they  have  is  what  the  people  furnish  them  for 
the  purpose  of  defraying  the  legitimate  expenses 
of  tlie  Government. 

But  these  financiers  tell  us  "  Just  let  the  Gov- 
ernment issue  money.  Does  not  the  Consti- 
tution give  the  National  Government  power  to 
coin  money  and  issue  bills  of  credit?"  Yes;  but 
coining  of  money  is  not  tiie  creation  of  value.  It 
is  simply  fixing  the  amount  of  fineness  of  the  metal 
in  any  given  piece.  The  Government  issues, 
no  notes  or  bonds,  except  as  an 
evidence  of  indebtedness.  They  are  all 
"promises  to  pay,"  either  on  demand  or  at  some 
fixed  day  in  the  future,  a  certain  fixed  sum ; 
and  the  value  of  such  promises  is  always  deter- 
mined by  tlie  aViUity  of  tlie  holder  to  convert  them 
into  the  money  of  the  world.  So  lang  as  they 
can  be  converted  on  demand  they  will  be  at  par. 
If  they  can  not  be,  their  value  will  fluctuate 
with  the  confidence  of  the  moneyed  men  in  their 
being  some  day  redeemed.  The  fact  that  our 
Government  issued  during  the  Civil  War  an  im- 
mense sum  of  greenbacks  as  a  matter  of  neces- 
sity, and  has  maintained  $346,000,000  of  them 
at  par  since  1879,  leads  some  men  to  assume 
that  the  Government,  at  any  time  the  officials 
de#m  it  best,  can  supply  itself  with  an  unlimited 
amount  of  cash  by  simply  printing  and  issuing 
legal-tender  notes ;  and  it  is  this  power  that 
these  men  would  invoke  to  supply  all  tlie  demands 
of  a  borrowing  people.  Under  this  theory  the 
question  reduces  itself  to  a  matter  of  the  capacity 
of  paper  mills  to  supply  the  material,  and  the 
question  of  payment  does  not  enter  into  the 
problem.  Up  to  this  time  every  promise  of  the 
Government  to  pay  has  been  looked  upon  as  a 
solemn  obligation,  resting  upon  the  people,  and 
as  a  first  mortgage  on  all  the  property  of  the 
United  States.  And  it  will  be  a  long  time  before 
the  people  will  conclude  to  increase  that  mortgage 
indebtedness  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  Ceneral 
Government  go  into  a  banking  business  and  invest 
their  funds  in  what  would  he  only  second  mor1>- 
gages,  incurring  risks  and  suffering  losses  for 
2  per  cent  a  year!  The  scheme  is  so  visionary 
and  absolutely  beyond  the  legitimate  purposes 
for  which  Governmenfs  are  instituted,  that  no 
man  of  business  sense  will  ever  entertain  it 
for  a  single  moment.  Yet,  we  flnS 
such  a  scheme  meeting  with  favor  in  the  delibera- 
tions of  these  new  organizations.     Were  our  Gov- 


24 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAH. 


ernment  once  to  enter  upoai  any  such  business,  we 
would  instantly  become  the  laughing-stock  oJ 
all  sensible  men  the  wide  world  over. 

What  a  notion  it  is  that  all  the  ills  and  diffi- 
culties of  life  can  be  obviated  by  passing  statutes ! 
The  creation  of  value  comes  only  through  work 
of  some  kind.  What  Governments  should  be  in- 
stituted and  supported  lor  is  to  see  to  it  that  all 
have  a  fair  chance  m  the  production  of  values. 
There  is  no  reason  m  the  world  why  a  Government 
should  go  into  the  banking  business  which  would 
not  also  lead  it  to  engage  in  every  other  kind  of 
business  in  the  known  world,  and  that  would 
end  in  Socialism  in  its  rankest  form.  My  word 
for  it,  it  will  be  a  long  time  before  you  will  get 
the  able,  thoughtful  farmer  of  this  country  to 
indorse  any  such  wOd  scheme. 

Another  effort  that  is  being  made  is  to  lead  the 
members  of  these  organizations  into  the  camp  of 
the  Free-Traders.  Heretofore,  a  lar^^e  proportion 
of  the  farmers  of  the  United  Spates  have  been 
Protectionists.  A  large  majority  of  them  stm 
believe  in  Protection:  As  they  examine  the  ques- 
tion more  carefully  they  will  see  that  their  only 
salvation  in  the  future  hes  in  building  up  new 
industries,  which  will  divert  the  stream  of  sur- 
plus laborers  from  agricultural  pursuits  and  turn 
It  into  channels  of  other  kinds  of  productive 
employment.  They  will  understand  that  this  can 
never  be  successfully  done  unless  our  laws  are 
so  framed  as  to  give  our  own  workmen  preference 
over  the  cheaper  labor  of  the  outside 
world.  Let  me  repeat,  if  these  new  organiza- 
tions insist  on  joining  hands  with  the  cohorts  of 
free  trade,  they  will  drive  from  their  ranks  large 
numbers  of  men  who  would  otherwise  work  in 
hojmony  with  them-men  who  have  no  faith  in 
these  dootjines  which  originate  among  the  cap- 
italists and  manufacturers  of  England,  and  which 
are  adopted  and  advocated  in  this  country  mostly 
by  the  importing  agents  of  those  foreign  gentle- 
men. 

There  are  many  gray-haired  farmers  now  living 
on  the  cultivated  lands  of  the  United  States  who 
distinctly  remember  the  woe,  the  distress,*  the 
actual  desolation  among  the  farmers  of  1857, 
brought  about  by  the  low  tariff  enacted  by  the 
Demooratio  party.  These  old  men  will  never  con- 
sent to  repeat  that  experiment.  Hence,  I  again 
say,  if  the  members  of  these  new  organizations 
would  be  successful,  would  seek  to  secure  length 
of  days  for  their  associations,  they  must  rise  above 
partisan  political  connections.  They  must  devote 
themseU^  to  the  work  they  first  assumed  to  do. 
Just  so  sure  as  they  enter  into  an  allianoe  to  pre- 
vent an  honest  ballot  and  a  fair  count  for  all  our 
voting  citizens,  just  so  sure  as  they  adopt  the 
wild  vagaries  and  impracticable  dreams  of  the  be- 
lievers in  fiat  money,  just  so  sure  as  they  persist 
in  an  attempt  to  lead  their  followers  into  the 
camp  of  the  English-loving,  American-Tiating  Free- 
Traders,  just  so  surely  will  their  power  for  doi»g 
good  be  destroyed  and  the  days  of  their  useful 
ness  be  numbered.  E.  G.  HOEB 


NEW   SUGAR  EEFINEKIES. 
o'lr:  I   liave  been  reading  E.   G.    Horr's   articles  in 
your  Weeiay  issue.     You  invite  Inquiries,  so  liere  goes 
a  question  to  Mr.  Horr. 


Can  you  tell  me  how  in  the  world  it  is,  tliat  the 
merchants  are  buUding  sugar  reflneries  In  Baltimore 
now  that  we  have  free  sugar,  or  I  may  say  free  trade 
m  that  article?  Why  build  sugar  refineries  now  when 
they  would  not  build  them  under  protection !  J.  K. 
Baltimore,  Md.,  March  12,  1891. 
Our  correspondent  has  evidently  omitted  to  ex- 
amine the  law  on  sugar,  or  he  would  hardly  have 
put  his  question  in  that  shape. 

Granulated  and  refined  sugars  are  not  on  the 
free  list,  only  sugars  below  and  including  No. 
16,  Dutch  Standard.  No.  16,  Dutch  standard,  is 
a  grade  of  sugar  usually  known  as  "  Coffee  C"  in 
the  markets  of  this  country  and  is  a  nice  article 
of  common  sugar  for  table  use.  The  higher  grades 
of  sugar  are  manufactured  in  refineries  from  low- 
grade,  dark-colored  sugars  which  are  not  fit  for 
family  use.  These  low-grade  sugars  are  all  on 
the  free  list,  but  the  refined  article  has  a  duty 
of  1-2  cent  per  pound,  so  as  to  enable  our  citizens 
who  run  refineries  to  pay  better  wages  than  they 
pay  abroad  and  to  give  them  the  advantage  over 
foreign  manufactures  in  our   own  markets. 

You  are  mistaken  in  your  inference  that  no  one 
under  the  old  law  built  reflneries  in  this  country. 
There  were  many  in  the  United  States,  and,  un- 
less I  am  misinformed,  several  in  Baltimore. 
The  reason  why  more  are  being-  Iniilt  in  that  city 
now,  is  that  some  men,  having  money,  have  con- 
eluded  that  with  low-grade  sugar  free  they  can 
make  money  refining  sugar,  ev^n  with  a  low  pro- 
tective duty  of  1-2  cent  a  pound  on  foreign  refined 
sugar. 

I  hope  they  will  succeed  in  the  enterprise  and 
make  their  investment  pay.  Sugar,  Botli  low  and 
liigh  in  grade,  will  be  cheaper  to  our  consumers 
under  the  McKinley  bill  than  ever  before.  If,  at 
the  same  time,  we  build  more  prosperous  re- 
fineries and  then  still  more,  if  the  bounty  on 
sugar  stimulates  the  growth  of  beets  and  the  man- 
ufacture of  low-grade  sugar  at  home,  I  will  l>e 
almost  happy  concerning-  the  situation  on  the 
sugar  question.     What  says  J.  K.  ?       E.  G.  H. 

— ♦ ■ — 

HENEY  CLAY  ON  PEOTECTION. 
In  1824  Henry  Clay,  in  one  of  his  wonderful 
speeches,  made  the  following  statement: 

It  is  most  desirable  tliat  there  should  be  both  a 
home  and  a  foreign  market.  But  -with  respect  to  their 
relative  superiority  I  cannot  entertain  a  doubt.  The 
home  marhet  is  first  in  order  and  paramount  in  im- 
portance. This  home  market,  desirable  as  It  is,  can 
only  be  created  and  clierislied  by  the  protection  of  our 
own  legislation  against  the  inevitable  prostration  of 
our  industry  wliich  must  ensue  from  the  action  o( 
foreign  policy  and  legislation.  If  I  am  asked  why  un- 
protected industry  should  not  succeed  in  a  struggle 
■with  protected  industry,  I  answer:  The  fact  has  ever 
been  so,  and  that  is  sufticient.  I  answer  the  uniform 
experience  evinces  that  it  cannot  succeed  in  such  a 
struggle,  and  that  is  sufficient.  If  we  speculate  on 
the  causes  of  this  universal  truth,  we  may  differ  about 
them.  Still  the  indisput-able  fact  remains.  The  cause 
of  protection  is  the  cause  of  tiie  country,  and  it  must 
and  "will  prevail.  It  is  founded  on  the  interests  and 
affections  of  the  people.  It  is  as  native  as  the  granite 
deeply  embosomed  in  our  mountains. 

In  spite  of  such  a  declaration  from  such  a  man 
we  have  no  end  of  the  puny  college  striplings  who 
go  up  and  down  our  country  claiming  that  men 
of  brains  are  never  protectionists,  and  that  the 
great  American  system  has  in  it  no  elements  of 
permanency.  Go  and  aslc  Henry  Clay  and  he  will 
tell  you  to  go  and  aslc  the  "  graaiitB  hills  of  New- 
England"  whether  they  po.ssess  staying  qualities. 
Truth  may  now  ami  then  receive  a  set-back,  but 
in  tihe  end  ti-uth  is  a  stayer!— (R.  G.  H. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


25 


ABOUT  MILLIONAIRES. 


A     REMARKABLE      LIST     AND      WHAT     IT 
TEACHES. 


A  FREE-TRADE  LIE  ABOUT  THE  TAIRIPF  EFPECTU- 
AliLT  NAILED   TO    THE  COUNTER. 

I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  readers  of 
The  Tribune  to  the  following  list,  which  is  taken 
from  "The  "New-York  World"  of  Sunday,  the 
7th  of  December,  1800: 

Men  of  Millions. —The  Greatest  Aggregation  of 
Wealth  in  the  World.— As  fortunes  go 
nowadays  in  America  one  of  $10,000,000 
is  not  considered  particularly  great.  There 
are  thirty-live  fortunes  of  that  or  greater 
magnitude       in      tliis      country.  There      are 

three  men  who  are  worth  1*100,000,000  or  more. 
The  list  of  the  Americans  who  count  their  wealth 
at  $5,000,000  and  above  is  as  follows: 

John   D.   RoolceteUer tfl25,000,000 

William  Waldort  Astor 125,000,000 

Jay   Gould 100,000.000 

Cornelius  VanUerbllt 80,000,000 

Willlani    K.    Vanderbllt 75.000,000 

■CoUls  V.  Huntlington 40,000,000 

Russell    .Sage 35,000,000 

John    I.    BlalT 30,000.000 

William  Rock«toller .-. 30,000,000 

Dalaud     .Stanford :)0.000,000 

Mrs.  HcU.v  Cfreen 30.000.000 

Wllltam  Astor _ 30.000,000 

Darius  O.   Mills 25.000,000 

Philip  D.  Aimour 2.'), 000, 000 

Mrs.   Mark   HoplUns 25,000,000 

Charles  docker  estate 25,000,000 

Henry   Hilton 20.000.000 

L.  S.  HIgslns  estate 20.000,000 

■George  Westlnghouse.  ir 15,000,000 

Anthony  D.  Drexel 15,000,000 

J.    Plerijout    Morgan 15,000,000 

Andrew   Carnegie 15,000,000 

•Oliver  H,   Payne 1.5,000.000 

Frederick    W.    Vandorbllt 15,000,000 

<Jeorge  W,   VandfrWlt 15,000,000 

Mrs.  Elliott  F.  Shepard „ 12,000,000 

Mrs.  William  D.  Sloane 12,000,000 

Mrs.  Hamilton  McK.  Twomtly 12,000,000 

Mrs.   W.    Seward  Webb 12,000,000 

George  M.  Pullman 12,000,000 

John    W.    Mackay 10,000,000 

Robert  Goelet 10,000,000 

Ogden  Goelet 10,000, 000 

Percy  R.   Pyne 10.000.000 

Mrs.  Moses  Taylor 10,000,000 

David   Dow    estate 8,000,000 

James    G.    Fair...... ..- 8,000,000 

WeJd    estate    (Philadelphia) 8,000,000 

Miss   Mary   Garrett   8,000,000 

Robert  Garrett  8,000,000 

-John   T.    Martin    8,000,000 

Amos   R.   Bno    8,000,000 

Theodore   Havemeyer    8,000,000 

Ives  estate   (Providence) 8,000,000 

Brown  estate  (Providence) _ 8,000,000 

Henry  A.  Taylor   6,000,000 

Mrs.   Robert  Wlnthrop 6,000,000 

Z.   Lelter    5,000,000 

Marshall  Field  5,000,000 

William   L.    Scott    5,000,000 

<5eorge  Bliss   5,000,000 

James    M.    Constable 5.000,000 

H,    H.    Cook ..- 5,000,000 

Mrs.    R.   L.   Stuart 5,000,000 

airs.  Bradley -Martin 5,000,000 


Mrs.   Aoioa  Phelps   Stokes 5,000,000 

Henry  G.   Marquand .5,000,000 

Henry    Hart    5,000,000 

Edward  Cooper    5,000,000 

Abram  S.  Hewitt 5,000,000 

WllUain   Stelnway   5,000,000 

George  Ehret    6,000,000 

Jacob  Ruppert   5,000,000 

George   J.    Gould ^.j 6,000,000 

Addison  Cammaok 6.000,000 

Adrian    Isolln 5,000,000 

Henry   Clews ....--i..  5,000,000 

Mme.  do  Barrios „...^..  5,000,000 

„.^....  5,000,000 

,^^....  6,000,000 

^...„..  6.000.000 

,._.^..  6,000,000 

6,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

,^^^_^^.  5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000.000 

.5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000.000 

5,000  000 

6,000,000 

5,000,000 

^.^^..  5,000,000 

5,000.000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

„ 6,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 

5,000,000 


Jolui  H.  Inman 

R.   T.    Wll.ion 

E.  D.  Morgan 

James  M.  Brown  estate 

R.   Hi'ber  Bishop 

Thomas  Garner  estate 

William    E.   Dodge 

D.   Willis  James 

Mrs.   John  C.  Green 

A.    A.   I.0W 

George  W.  Ohilds 

John  Wananiaker 

General  Samu' 1  Thomas 

Frederick  L.  Ames 

Oliver  Aines 

Benjamin  P.    Hutchinson 

Charles  L,  Tiffany 

Mrs.  William  H.  Vanderbllt 

Levi  P.  Morton 

August  Belmont  estate 

.lames  b!  Colgate 

John  B.  Trevor 

Eugene  Kelly 

William  Rhinelander 

H.   O.    Havemeyer 

.\ustln  Corlln 

Robert   Bonner 

Bayard  and  Robert  L.   Cutting.. 

James  and  Townsend  Burden 

Edward  Schermerhorn 

J.  N.  L.  Griswold 

Wilson   G.    Hunt 

Mrs.  Josephine  Ayer 

Phlneas  T.  Barnum 

David  W.  Bishop 

Henry  A.  Cram 

Samuel  Sloan 

William  Peabody  Wetmore 

Elbrldge  T.   Gerry 

Robert  L.  Livingston 

Jesse  Seligman 

William  Seligman 

Sidney  Dillon. 


E.  S.  JalTray 5,000,000 

.Tohn    Olaflin 5,000,000 

Mrs.  Edwin  Stevens 5,000,000 

Le  Grand  B.  Cannon 5^000,000 

William  C.    Schermerhorn 5,000,000 

Rev.  Charles  HolTman 5,000,000 

Rev.  Dean  Hotfman 5,000,000 

Morris  K.  Jesup 5,000,000 

James  M.  Waterbury 5,000,000 

Paran  Stevens  estate 5,000,000 

Abraham  R.  Van  ^est  estate 5,000,000 

Whether  the  amounts  set  opposite  tbese  names 
represent  the  wealth  of  these  individuals  ac- 
curately or  not  is  sometliing  about  which  my 
knowledge  is  very  limited.  Nor  does  it  matter 
very  much  for  the  purposes  of  this  article.  "  The 
WorkT"  Is  entirely  responsible  for  the  accuracy  of 
the  .figures ;  and  as  that  is  the  leading  free- trade 
organ  ol  tlie  JJemocratic  party,  we  will  take  its 
statement  as  being  correct. 

One  of  the  oft^repeated  assertions  of  tlie  free- 
trade  press  of  the  country  in  which  "  The  World" 
has  persistently  joiued    is  this :  They  tell  us  that 


26 


BIG    ISSUKs    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


our  tariff  laws  are  oonsta.ntly  "robbing  the  poor 
to  benefit  the  rich,"  and  then  make  the  state- 
ment tliat  the  great  fortunes  which  lia^e  been 
piled  up  so  daingerously  high  in  this  country 
within  the  last  few  years  are  made  through  the 
workings  of  our  protective  system:  further,  that 
were  it  not  for  this  •'  robbery"  under  our  tariff 
laws,  wealth  would  be  evenly  distributed  here 
in  the  United  States,  and  such  colossal  fortunes 
would  be  unknown.  That  statement  is  m\de  from 
one  end  of  the  Nation  to  the  other,  on  the  stump, 
in  public  debates,  in.  private  conversation.  A 
free-trade  orator  who  would  not  close  his  speech 
with  a  terrilic  assault  on  Mr.  Carnegie  and  other 
'^manufacturing  barons"  woiild  be  considered  too 
tame  for  present  use  and  would  soon  be 
out  of  business.  Indeed  the  effort  to  make 
the  people  beUeve  that  all  the  riches  of  the  day 
come  through  the  accumulations  of  protected  in- 
dustries is  constant,  7iefsistcnt  arid  notorious. 

Eight  on  the  heels  of  this  assertion  comes  this 
list  of  millionaires  published  by  this  free-trade 
organ,  as  a  matter  of  news,  without  the  slightest 
idea  of  tlie  lesson  it  teaches.  Now  for  the  lesson. 
By  examination  you  will  find  that  the  list 
comprises  122  names  estimated  to  be  worth 
S.5,000,000  and  upward  each.  To  be  more  specific, 
there  are  in  the  list  two  persons  rated  at  §125,000,- 
000,  one  at  $100,000,000,  one  at  $75,000,000,  one 
at  $40,000,000,  one  at  $35,000,000,  five  at  $30,- 
000,000  each,  four  at  $25,000,000  each,  two  at 
$20„000,000  each,  seven  at  $15,000,000  each,  five 
at  $12,000,000  each,  five  at  $8,000,000  each,  two 
at  $6,000,000  each,  and  seventy-five  at  $5,000,000 
each.  The  entire  list  aggregates  $1,552,000,000. 

The  wealth  of  the  thirty-five  persons  first 
named  foots  up  $1,085,000,000.  Among  the  en- 
tire thirty-five  there  are  only  two  who  made  their 
flaoney  by  manufacturing  articles  protected  by  our 
tariff  laws.  One  of  these,  L.  S.  Higgins,  is  in 
the  $20,000,000  list,  and  the  other,  Andrew  Car- 
oegie,  is  in  the  $15,000,000  list.  If  there  is 
another  one  among  the  entire  thirty-five  who  can 
be  classed  as  among  manufacturers  who  have  made 
their  money  by  making  and  selling  protected 
goods,  I  have  been  unable  to  learn  which  one  it  is. 
John  D.  Eockefeller  heads  the  list  and  is  rated 
at  $125,000,000.  His  fortune  came  through  the 
Standard  Oil  Company.  But  oil  is  exported  from 
this  country  in  enormous  quantities  and  has  never 
been  affected  in  price  by  tariff  laws. 

The  next  two  names  are  Astor  and  Gould.  The 
first  one  inherited  his  fortune,  which  comes  from 
merchandising  and  the  enormous  rise  in  real  estate 
in  New-York  City,  and  as  for  Mr.  Gould,  it  is 
well  known  that  his  wealth  comes  from  railroad 
purchases  and  deals,  in  stoclcs  and  other  securities. 
If  he  ever  made  a  dollar  as  a  manufacturer,  the 
fact  has  been  entirely  concealed  from  the  public 
at  large. 

Go  through  the  entire  list  of  122  names:  and 
I  assert  that  there  will  not  be  found  to  exceed 
twenty  who  made  their  money,  or  an5'  consider- 
able proportion  of  it,  as  manufacturers,  and  the 
aggregate  rating  of  these  twenty  is  less  than 
§142,000,000.  That  leaves  in  the  list  102  men 
who  made  their  money  in  other  ways.  Their  wealth 
foots  up  the  enormous  sum  of  $1,510,000,000. 


I  defy  any  man  to  examine  the  list  and  refute- 
this  statement.  Indeed,  I  beg  of  these  free-trade 
advocates  to  give  it  their  careful  attention  andi 
then  tell  me  if  the  above  statement  is  not  absio- 
lutely  correct.  Of  course,  my  acquaintance  with, 
these  millionaires  is  vei'y  limited  indeed,  but  my 
information  as  to  the  manner  in  which  their' 
accumulations  were  made,  is,  in  my  judgment,, 
most  reliable.  At  Jeast,  my  effort  has  been  to- 
fecure  the  exact  facts.  I  believe  I  have  been 
successful. 

If  tlie  foregoing  statements  are  true,  then  pray 
tell  me  what  becomes  of  the  doctrine  so  persistent- 
ly taught  by  the  enemies  of  protection,  that  most 
of  the  great  fortunes  of  this  country  have  been 
made  by  men  who  took  advantage  of  our  tariff 
laws  and  so  "  robbed  the  people "  ?  My  opinion  is. 
that  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  great  fort- 
unes accumulated  iii  the  United  States  during  the 
last  half  a  century  wiU  make  about  the  same 
showing  as  is  so  clearly  made  by  this  list.  Not 
to  exceed  one  in  six  will  be  found  to  have  been 
made  by  men  who-  manufacture  protected  goods. 
This  is  accounted  for  from  the  fact  that  the  bene- 
fits of  a  protective  tariff  go  largely  to  the  men 
who  do  the  work.  The  statement  thai  it  all  goe» 
into  the  pockets  of  the  men  who  manag.;  the  busi- 
ness is  not  true.  Indeed,  the  bulk  of  it  is  ab- 
sorbed in  the  high  wages  paid  the  men  who  work 
in  our  shops  and  factories  as  compared  with  the 
wages  paid  abroad  in  the  production  of  the  some 
kind  of  goods. 

I  do  not  deny  that  very  many  of  our  manufact- 
urers have  been  prosperous.  It  is  best  for  the 
country  that  they  should  be.  Some  of  them  have 
amassed  wealth,  but  they  have  risked  vaal,  sums 
iind  managed  immense  institutions  to  do  it.  The 
magnitude  of  their  operations  often  brings  wealth 
on  small  margins.  Why  should  not  such  be  the 
case  ?  At  the  same  time,  many  of  them  have 
struggled  hard  and  finaUy  failed.  It  is  the  pros- 
perous concern  that  blesses  the  community  in 
which  it  is  located,  never  the  failing  one.  Let 
me  state  this  one  fact :  It  is  always  better  lor  the 
workingmen,  for  the  merchants  and  the 
farmers,  that  the  men  who  manufacture 
goods  of  any  kind  in  any  community 
should  be  prosperous  and  successful.  The  fact 
that  they  are  so  insures  prompt  payment  of  wages,, 
sure  returns  for  the  sale  of  merchandise  and  a 
reliable  home  market  at  good  prices  for  the 
products  of  the  farm.  Let  no  farmer  or  merchant 
or  laboring  man  ever  take  any  stock  in  tlie  rant 
of  these  importers  of  foreign  goods  and  English 
sympathizers  when  they  attempt  to  make  you, 
believe  that  anything  which  will  cripple  the  great 
manufacturing  industries  of  this  country  can  in 
any  possible  manner  benefit  you.  Hereafter,  when 
any  of  them  tell  you  that  the  millionaires  of  the 
country  come  mostly  from  men  who  manufacture 
articles  under  our  protective  laws,  call  their  at- 
tention to  this  fist,  and  get  them  to  explain  tlieix 
statement,  if  they  can.  Then  ask  them  to  tell- 
you  who  has  done  more  for  the  farmers,  the  mer- 
chants, the  mechanics  and  workingmen  of  thi* 
Nation  than  the  men,  like  Andrew  Carnegie,  who 
have  organized  immense  industries,  employed 
thousands  of  men  at  good  wages,  and  kept  in  thi* 


BIG    ISSUJiS    OF    AN    OFF    YEAIl. 


27 


Country  millions  and  millions  of  dollars  wliicli. 
except  for  their  efforts,  would  have  gone  abroad 
to  pay  lor  articles  made  in  foreign  shops  and 
factories.  This  whole  tirade  against  men  who 
build  up  industries  in  this,  our  own,  country  is 
wicked  beyond  measure,  and,  as  a  rule,  is  founded 
on  false  statements.  E.  G,  HOEE. 


GOLD  AND  SILVER  AS  MONEY 


HOW     THE,SE     METALS     AND    BANK    NOTES 
CAME  TO  BE  USED  IN  TRADE. 


AN    ENTERTAINING    EXPOjITION    OP   THE   WHOLE 
SUBJECT,    WITH      REPEllENOE     TO      THE    EF- 
FECTS OF  "  FKEE  COINAGE  "  OP  SILVER, 
To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

.Sir :  In  your  wookly  edition  of  June  17,  I  read 
two  articles  from  Mr,  R.  G.  Horr,  one  on 
tile  "rice  and  sugar"  (luestlon,  the  other,  on  tlie 
••  Sub-Treasury"  schome,  both  of  wliicli  wore  liandled 
in  so  majsterly  a  manner,  tliat  I  am  constrained 
(tUough  not  a  subscriber!  to  asit,  what  Is  tlie  meaniug 
o£  "free  coinage,"  aud  why  do  some  people  argue  that 
It  win  be  a  blessing  to  tlie  country,  while  otliere 
claim  the  reverse?  An  answer  will  much  oblige 
yours  respectfully,  G.  K.  RYAN. 

Barnwell,  S.  C,  June  23,  1801. 
The  term  "  free  coinage ''  has  come  to,  mean 
mucli  more  than  the  two  words  would  seem  to 
express.  In  order  to  have  the  subject  under- 
stood, it  is  necessary  to  explain  how  gold  and 
silver  happened  to  be  used  at  all  as  the  money 
of  the  world.  In  the  earlj'  dawn  of  civilization 
there  was  probably  no  kind  of  money  in  use.  AU 
commercial  transactions  were  at  lirst  simply  bar- 
ter between  individuals.  What  is  meant  by 
that  is  that  people  began  the  exchange  of  prop- 
erty by  trading  one  kind  of  property  for  another. 
A  man  having  a  surplus  of  grain,  if  he  desired  a 
cow,  hunted  up  some  person  who  had  a  cow  to 
spare  and  who  needed  grain,  and  the  two  men 
exchanged  with  each  other.  This  kind  of  a  trans- 
action made  it  necessary  that  the  man  who  had 
a  surplus  of  grain  should  find  a  person  who  had 
an  extra  cow  and  was  short  of  grain.  Of  course, 
after  a  time,  the  same  man  who  had  a  cow  to 
spare,  learning  that  grain  was  an  article  of  uni- 
versal use,  came  to  make  the  exchange,  although 
he  was  not  short  of  grain.  He  did  it  from  the 
fact  that  he  could  more  readilj-  find  persons  who 
were  in  need  of  bread  than  he  could  those  who 
were  in  need  of  cows ;  and  because,  with  this 
grain,  which  he  did  not  need,  he  could  readily 
make  an  exchange  for  other  articles  which  he  did 
need.  More  than  that,  the  grain  being  easily 
divided  into  smaller  portions,  he  could  niore  readily 
use  it  Itt  exchange  for  a-  number  of  articles  which 
he  migbt  need  ;  the  cow  could  not  easily  be  divided 
up  and  utilized  in  that  way. 

In  this  manner,  no  doubt,  all  useful  articles 
which  were  easily  preserved  and  readily  divided 
up  into  smaller  quantities  came  to  be  used  as 
mediums  of  exchange. 

As  people  advanced  in  civilization  a  taste  for 
the  beautiful  was  undoubtedly  devi'loped.     There 


is  little  doubt  that  the  lirst  use  of  gold  and  silver 
was  simply  for  the  purposes  of  ornament,  pre- 
cisely as  diamonds  and  otiier  precious  stones  find 
a  use  at  the  present  day.  Gold  and  silver  were 
used  for  ornament,  owing  to  the  brilliancy  of 
their  colors  and  their  great  durability.  After  the 
skill  of  the  silversmith  and  the  goldsmith 
had  come  to  be  established  the  world  learned  to 
use  these  two  metals  for  the  making  of  ornamentB 
of  various  shapes  and  sizes,  so  that  these  metals 
so.on  came  to  be  valuable  according  to  the  quan- 
tity of  each  kind.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
use  of  gold  and  silver  was  at  first  largely  for  oma- 
mentiition. 

Silver,  being  found  in  by  far  greater  abundance 
and  being  procured  with  very  much  less  labor  than 
gold,  came  to  be  considered  less  desirable  and  con- 
sequently excliangeable  for  very  much  less  of 
other  products  than  gold.  It  has  always  been  the 
cheaper  of  the  two  metals,  although  at  an  early 
day  tlie  difference  of  value  between  gold  and 
silver  was  not  so  great  as  at  the  present  time. 
No  doubt  these  metals  came  to  be  sought  after 
as  substances  of  real  value  long  Ijefore  tlie.v  were 
used     as     the     legal     money     of     any     nation. 

iVs  grain  of  every  description  was  easily  divided 
into  different  portions  and  could  be  used  as  a 
medium  of  exchange  more  readily  than  other  prod- 
ucts of  the  soil,  so  it  soon  became  apparent  that- 
gold  and  silver  could  also  be  divided  and  sub- 
divided with  great  ease,  and  that  they  were  not. 
easily  destroyed  by  the  action  of  the  elements  :  and 
thus  people  came  to  use  them  as  a  medium  of  ex- 
change, A  transaction  could  be  made  simple  and 
deiinite  by  using  an  exact  amount  of  eitlier  metal, 
so  that  all  the  early  dealing  of  the  human  race  in 
golfl  and  silver  came  to  be  made  by  the  contract- 
ing parties  naming  the  weight  of  each  uietal  that 
entered  into  each  transaction.  All  grain  came  to 
be  described  naturally  by  measure ;  and  all  metals 
by  weight. 

ORIGIN    OP    COINAGE. 

Aiter  a  time  gold  and  silver,  owing  to  their 
being  so  perfectly  adapted  to  service  as  a  medium 
of  exchange,  came  to  be  used  for  that  purpose 
much  more  ext?nsivelj'  than  any  other  products 
or  any  •jftier  metals.  Of  course  it  soon  became  ap- 
parent that  to  have  transactions  honest  and  fair, 
the  purity  of  these  metals  must  be  carefully  guard- 
ed. Thus  the  quantity  and  quality  of  each  sample- 
of  gold  and  silver  came  to  be  a  question  of  grave 
importance  to  the  people.  Finally  a  plan  grew 
up  of  having  the  governments  analj'ze  gold  and 
silver  and  form  them  into  various  shapes  and  sizes, 
determining  the  quality  and  quantitj'  in  each 
piece.  The  governments  at  first  simplj-  stamped 
upon  each  piece  some  name  which  Indicated  its 
exact  weight.  For  long  numbers  of  years  no 
name  was  given  to  any  piece  of  gold  or  silver  ex- 
cept such  as  simply  indicated  the  weight  of  pure 
metal  in   such  piece. 

At  that  early  day  the  idea  of  a  parity  of  value- 
between  the  two  metals  had  never  been  dreamed 
of,  although  each  was  being  used  in  all  the  more- 
civilized  nations  as  money.  Each  contract  ia 
those  days  must  have  been  drawn  payable  in  so- 
much  silver  or  gold,  and  the  amount  of  each  was>- 
always  designated  by  weight. 


28 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAU. 


After  a  while  certain  pieces  of  gold  and  silver 
came  to  be  called  by  some  simple  names,  and  the 
people  came  to  talk  about  the  value  of  property, 
as  expressed  by  a  certain  number  of  these  named 
pieces  or  coins.  In  that  way  people  came  to  lose 
sight  of  the  exact  weight  of  metal  in  each  piece. 
Different  nations  gave  a  different  name,  according 
to  accident  or  fancy,  to  the  piece  in  most  common 
use  among  the  people  of  each  nation.  In  that 
way,  value  came  to  be  expressed  by  naming  the 
number  of  certain  coins.  That  value  was  stUl 
reaUy  determined  by  the  weight  of  pure  metal 
contained  in  each  coin,  though  not  always  thought 
of  when  naming  them.  In  this  way,  Anally,  the 
people  came  to  demand  a  uniformity  of  metal  in 
each  named  piece,  and  so  resorted  to  legislation 
which  was  simply  intended  to  fix  the  exact  amount 
of  pure  metal  contained  in  each  size  of  coin.  Thus, 
by  slow  growth,  the  governments  of  the  world 
learned  to  select  certain  metals  as  a  standard  of 
value  with  which  prices  could  be  measured  and 
named. 

By  a  similar  slow  process  a  definite  measure  of 
distances  was  long  ago  fixed.  Originally  the 
space  between  two  places  was  designated  by  p.aces, 
or  so  many  times  a  day's  journey.  Those  terms 
were  soon  found  to  be  indefinite  and  variable. 
To-day  we  use  the  terms  "inches,"  "feet,"  "rods," 
"  miles,"  as  being  something  very  simple  and  easy, 
yet  they  are  the  result  of  long  ages  of  slow  growth 
and  careful,  patient  study.  The  same  can  be 
said  of  weights.  So  the  terms  "  sovereigns, " 
"francs,"  "doubloons"  and  "dollars  "  are  the  out- 
growth of  long  and  slow  development.  Each 
nation  finally  named  how  much  of  each  metal 
should  be  contained  in  each  of  its  coins ;  and  for 
many  centuries  the  unit  of  value  has  been  fixed 
by  each  nation  naming  a  certain  coin  as  its  stand- 
ard, and  then  naming  the  amount  of  pure  metal 
that  should  be  contained  in  each  coin,  declaring 
by  law  that  aU  contracts  should  be  drawn  ex- 
pressing amounts  to  be  paid  with  that  unit  as  the 
measure  of  value. 

The  United  States  called  its  unit  of  value  the 
"dollar,"  the  same  as  the  "foot"  is  made  the 
unit  of  measure  for  distance  and  the  "  pound  "  the 
unit  of  measure  for  weight.  The  term  "  dollar, " 
used  in  that  way,  had  no,  definite  meaning  until 
the  amount  of  pure  metal  to  be  contained  in  each 
piece  was  fixed  by  the  same  statute.  It  matters 
not  what  name  each  nation  may  give  to  its  unit 
of  value,  the  coin  so  struck  off  has,  in  the  markets 
■of  the  world,  simply  the  value  that  is  determined 
by  the  weight  of  pure  metal  contained  in  it. 
Hence,  the  moment  any  coin  leaves  the  nation 
that  has  coined  it,  its  value  is  at  once  determined 
by  its  weight,  precisely  the  same  as  it  would  have 
been  ages  ago,  when  it  had  never  been  formed  into 
the  shape  of  coin    or  stamped  by  the  Government. 

Some  nations  made  their  standard  of  measure 
a  certain  amonnt  of  silver ;  others,  a  certain 
amount  of  gold.  The  common  use  of  the  two 
metals  as  money  soon  led  to  an  attempt  to  fix  the 
Tatio  of  value  between  the  two.  In  this  way,  in 
this  country,  it  was  ordered  that  a  gold  piece 
called  an  "eagle"  in  order  to  be  worth  ten  dollars 
must  have  in  it  an  amount  of  gold  which  would 
be  worth  exactly  the  same  amount   as  the  weight 


of  silver  which  was  first  contained  in  tern  silver 
dollars.  It  can  readily  be  seen  that  if  these  two 
metals  never  changed  at  all  in  their  relative 
value  the  value  of  an  eagle  or  any  other  gold 
coin  could  be  reached  with  great  ease  and  with 
perfect  accuracy. 

GOLD    THE    STAWDASD    IN    AMERICA. 

The  first  unit  of  value  in  the  United  States  was 
the  silver  dollar,  which,  according  to  law,  must 
contain  371  1-1  grains  of  pure  silver.  The  same 
act  provided  that  24  3-4  grains  of  pure  gold  should 
be  the  equivalent  of  the  silver  dollar  of  371  1-4 
grains.  The  amount  of  pure  sUveir  contained  in  a 
silver  dollar  has  never  been  changed  in  the 
United  States. 

In  1849  an  act  was  passed  directing  the  coin- 
age of  gold  dollars.  They  were  issued  the  same 
year  and  contained  only  23  22-100  grains  of  pure 
gold.  The  act  of  1873  made  this  gold  dollar  the 
unit  of  value,  instead  of  the  silver  dollar.  This  is 
the  act  which  is  said  by  the  silver  men  to  have 
"  demonetized  silver. " 

The  present  weight  of  the  silver  dollar  is  412  1-2 
grains  including  the  alloy,  and  that  has  been  the 
weight  of  the  silver  dollar  of  the  United  States 
since  1837.  Previous  to  that  time  it  weighed  416 
grains;  but  the  increase  in  weight  was  in  the 
alloy  and  not  in  the  amount  of  pure  silver  con- 
tained in  each  piece. 

Since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  r873,  sUver,  as 
compared  with  gold,  has  greatly  depreciated  iu 
value.  By  that  act  our  Nation  became  what  is 
called  "  a  gold  standard  nation. "  Immense  quan- 
tities of  silver,  since  the  passage  of  the  "  Bland 
Act,"  have  been  coined  into  silver  dollars  con- 
taining 371  1-4  grains  of  pure  silver,  which  was 
tor  so  many  years  the  standard  of  value  in  the 
United  States,  and  hence  they  are  commonly 
known  as  "  standard"  silver  dollars.  But  the 
silver  from  which  these  dollars  have  been  coined 
has  been  purchased  by  the  Government  at  its  gold 
value.  Consequently  while  the  Government  is- 
sues each  standard  dollar  as  being  equal  in  value 
to  the  gold  dollar  (which  is,  now  the  unit  of  value 
in  this  country)  it  does  not  put  into  such  silver 
dollar  neaily  as  much  silver  as  such  a  gold  dollar 
will  purchase.  Hence  we  have  in  circulation  in 
the  United  States  a  large  amount  of  silver  money, 
which  can  be  used  in  this  country  at  its,  face 
value,  which  in  the  markets  of  the  world  is  worth 
less  than  75  cents  on  the  dollar. 

The  men  who  are  in  favor  of  the  "  free  coinage"  of 
sUver  insist  that  the  demonetizing  of  silver,  by 
decreasing  its  use,  has  cheapened  silver ;  and  that 
by  the  same  act  which  made  the  gold  dollar  our 
unit  o,f  value  an  enornious  increase  m  the  use  of 
gold  was  occasioned,  and,  that,  consequently  gold 
has  appreciated  in  value.  The  men  who  believe 
in  the  gold  standard  claim  that  the  depreciation 
of  silver  has  been  brought  about  by  the  large 
increase  of  production  and  by  the  cheapened  pro- 
cesses of  mining  and  smelting ;  and  they  also 
claim  that  the  value  of  gold  has  been  nearly  sta- 
tionary compared  with  other  products  of  the  world. 

HOW  PAPER  MONET  CAME  TO  BE  USED. 

While,  at  an  early  day,  nearly  all  the  money 
of  the  world  was  either  gold  or  sliver,  at  a  very 


BIG    ISSUUa    OF    AN    OFF    YEAK. 


'ft 


early  date  people  besan  to  use  as  evidence  of 
value  "  promises  to  pay"  certaiu  sums  of  money 
These  written  promises  were  undoubtedly  in  com- 
mon use  long  bcfori-  such  a  thins  sis  a  bunk  not« 
was  ever  Icnown.  By  a  slow  pruccHs  of  growth, 
banks  were  authorized  by  law  to  issue  their  own 
promissory  notes  as  money.  After  another  lapse 
of  time,  Gavernnients  issued  tbo  promissory  notes  of 
the  nation  itself  to  supply  the  needs  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. These,  iiov^ever.  were  always  simpl.v 
promissory  notes,  and  had  no  other  stflndin?,  with 
this  c.vceptlon,  that  the  Government  made  them 
a  lesal  tender  for  tlie  payment  of  debts  between 
individuals,  sometWng:  which  no  nation,  so  far  as  I 
know,  has  ever  done  for  any  notes  issued  by  any 
individuals  or  by  any  banking  institutions.  Out 
of  tills  power,  assumed  and  exercised  by  the  gen- 
eral Government,  lias  grown  up  the  notion  that 
the  Government,  by  its  mere  edict,  can  create  value 
in  legal  tender  notes. 

The  history  of  the  world  proves  beyond  all  con- 
troversy that  such  legal  tender  notes  can  be  kept 
at  i)ar  witli  the  coin  standard  of  the  country  onlj- 
when  they  are  redeemed  by  the  Government  on 
presentation  in  hard  cash.  They  arc  subject  to 
precisely  the  same  fluctuations  as  are  the  notes  of 
Individuals  and  corporate  institutions.  Very 
larjre  sums  of  such  paper  obligations  have  been  issu- 
ed by  various  Governments  of  the  world  and  have 
afterward  become  absolutely  worthless.  The  as- 
slgnats  of  France,  the  Continental  money  of  the 
United  States  and  the  legal  tender  notes  of  the  late 
Sonthern  Confederacy  may  tie  given  as  instances 
of  the  utter  absence  of  value  in  such  paper  money, 
except  when  constantly  redeemed  by  the  maker  in 
gold    or   silver  money. 

The  exchanges  of  the  world  to-day  are  very 
largely  carried  on  without  the  actual  use  of  either 
gold  or  silver.  By  the  nse  of  bank  checks,  sight 
drafts,  and  Clearing  House  oerEiiicates  business 
to  the  amount  of  many  millions  of  dollars  is  trans- 
acted every  day  without  the  counting  or  handling 
of  a  single  coin  or  a  paper  dollar.  OTving  to  these 
facts,  people  have  come  to  look  upon  paper  rep- 
resentations of  money  as  the  money  itself.  They 
forget  that  each  and  every  one  of  these  transac- 
tions, if  genuine,  can  be  traced  to  the  gold  or  silver 
which  is  always  the  real,  though  not  apparent, 
basis  of  the  transaction. 

THE   "  FREE  COINAGE"  IDEA. 

All  of  these  things  combined  liave  created  the 
impression  among  very  many  people  that  the 
Government  by  its  mere  fiat  power  can  give  ac- 
tual value  to  silver  or  gold  without  regard  to 
quantity,  and  tO'  paper  promises  without  provid- 
ing for  their  redemption  in  metal.  Hence  a  large 
number  of  people  in  the  United  States  have  come 
to  believe  that  if  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  would  pass  a  law  making  371  1-4  grains  of 
Sliver  our  unit  of  value,  and  then  declare  that  a 
"  dollar"  containing  that  amount  of  pure  silver 
should  be  the  equivalent  of  a  gold  dollar  contain- 
ing 22  8-10  grains  of  pure  gold,  the  two  pieces 
would  instantly  become  of  equal  value,  or  nearly 
BO,  all  over  the  world.  They  therefore  seek  to 
have  the  law  so  arranged  that  every  individual  on 
the  face  of  the  earth  who  shall  bring  to  the 
United  States  Mint  371  1-4  grains  of  silver  shall 


receive  for  the  same  a  coin  named  a  "  dollar"  from 
the  Government,  and  that  such  silver  '■  dollar" 
shall  be  a  legal  tender  for  all  purposes  in  the 
United  States  without  any  regard  to  the  price  of  sil- 
ver in  the  markets  of  the  world.  Tliat  is  wliat  is 
now  meant  by  "free  coinage  of  silver."  It  such 
were  to  be  the  result,  it  the  two  "  dollars"  would 
at  once  become  equal  in  value,  no  one  would  op- 
pose the  free  coinage  of  sliver. 

Many  people  do  not  believe  that  this  Nation 
alone  can  produce  any  such  result.  There  are 
those  wlio  do  not  laelieve,  even  if  all  the  nations 
of  the  world  should  agree  upon  the  ratio  between 
tlie  two  metals,  that  all  of  them  combined  could 
keep  the  ratio  the  same  at  all  times. 

Those  who  do  not  desire  the  free  coinage  of  sil- 
ver claim  that  such  coinage  would  result  in  driv- 
ing the  gold  out  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
all  our  business  would  very  soon  be  done  with  a 
cheap  currency  which  would  derange  commeTClai 
transactions  and  work  a  great  hardship  to  people 
who  work  for  wages  and  those  who  have  invested 
their  means  in  loans. 

The  silver  men  claim  that  such  a  law  would 
advance  the  price  of  sUver  and  decrease  the  price 
of  gold  so  that  the  two  metals  would  be  equal  in 
value  at  the  same  ratio  as  in  former  years,  and 
that  money  would  become  cheaper  only  on  account 
of  its  greater  abundance,  and  that  such  a  result 
would  make  it  easier  tor  people  to  pay  their  debts 
and  obtain  a  living. 

There  are  those  who  believe  the  free  coinage  of 
silver  would  simply  put  large  profits  into  the 
pockets  of  men  who  o\vn  silver  mines,  or  who  are 
holding  silver  bullion  on  speculation,  and  that  the 
(jtovernment  has  no  more  right  to  fix  the  price  of 
silver  by  legislation  and  then  take  all  the  silver 
at  that  price  than  it  would  have  to  fix  a  high 
price  on  wheat  or  corn  and  oats,  and  then  take 
those  articles  at  such  advanced  price,  to  the  great 
advantage  of  those  who  have  them  to  sell,  but  at 
the  expense  of  the  rest  of  the  people. 

SO    RASH    EXPERIMENTS. 

This  question  of  money  is  one  so  complicated 
in  all  its  bearings,  so  far-reacMng  in.  its  im- 
portance, and  so  intricate  in  its  workings,  that 
experiments  with  new  theories  and  new  methods 
should  be  entered  upon  with  gi-eat  caution.  Any 
effort  to  do  business  with  a  depreciated  measure 
of  value  must  always  end  in   disaster. 

Value  is  sometliing  that  cannot  be  given  to 
an  article  by  legislative  enactment.  All  forms 
of  paper  money  must  be  of  necessity  simply 
■'  promises  to  pay "  in  something  of  actual  value. 
Any  effort  to  make  a  small  quantity  of  any  arti- 
cle equal  in  value  to  a  larger  quantity  of  the 
same  article  must  end  in  failure.  Oui'  Govern- 
ment should  stand  ready  to  join  with  the  other 
nations  of  the  world  in  agreeing  upon  some  ratio 
of  value  between  gold  and  silver,  so  as  to  keep 
both  of  these  metals  in  use  as  legal  money.  Afi 
long  as  other  moneyed  nations  refuse  to  enter 
into  such  an  arrangement  it  seems  to  me  idle  for  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  single-handed 
and  alone,  to  attempt  to  force  any  fixed  ratio 
upon  the  world. 

If  legislation  is  wisely  taken    it  seems  to  nie 


30 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OIT    YEAiJ. 


that  it  will  be  confined  to  utilizing  the  silver 
produced  in  the  United  States,  and  not  looking 
after  that  of  the  Old  World.  This  can  safely  be 
done  by  enforcing  our  present  E.ws.  In  doing 
this  there  is  little  risk.  Why  then  resort  to  the 
experiment  of  "  free  coinage "  for  the  silver  of 
all  nations,  especially  when  such  a  plan  is  con- 
demned by  a  large  majority  of  the  men  in  this 
country  who  have  had  great  experieiuee  in  finan- 
cial matters  ? 

I  do  not  claim  to  be  much  of  an  authority  on 
the  money  question.  Indeed,  the  more  I  study 
It  the  less  certain  I  am  as  to  wliat  will  be  the 
result  of  lany  proposed  legislation  For  that 
reason,  I  would  let  well  enough  alone.  Under 
no  possible  conditions  does  it  appear  to  me  best 
that  we  should  make  it  an  object  for  the  people 
•of  the  Old  World  to  bring  their  silver  here  for 
coinage  by  ofEering  them-a  chance  in  that  way  to 
dispose  of  it  at  much  more  than  the  value  which 
is  accorded  to  it  in  the  markets  of  the  world. 
How  couJd  such  a  law  benefit  our  own  people? 
I  would  have  the  laws'  of  this  country  so  framed 
as  to  bless,  first  and  all  the  time,  the  people 
living  m  the  United  States.  E.  G.  HOEB. 


DUTIES  AND  WHO  PAY  THEM. 


QUESTIONS  BY  AN  ILLINOIS  MAN. 


DO    THE   POOR   OR  THE    KIOH.   THE   FOREIGNER 
OR    THE    CITIZEN,    PAT    THE    DUTIES 
ON   IMPORTED   GOODS? 
To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir :  I,  a  farmer,  would  like  to  have  the  following 
questions  answered  through  the  columns  of  your 
valuable  paper.     Answei-s   by   E.    G.  Horr  preferred: 

1.  AVould  a  duty  levied  on  an  article  produced  in 
this  country,  or  one  not  produced  here,  bring  moro 
money  to  the  Treasury,  a  like  amount  being  consumed! 

2.  What  Is  the  proportion  of  rich  to  poor  in  the 
Trnlted  States?  Draw  the  line  where  a  poor  man  ends 
and  a  rich  one  begins  that  was  used  by  R.  G-.  H.  In 
Ws  article  on  the  "Tariff  of  Great  Britain." 

B.  The  proportion  of  tariff  paid  by  the  rioh  and 
poor  in  the  United  States. 

4.  The  amount  of  tariff  coUected  in  the  United 
■States  for   the  year  1890. 

5.  Give  the  names  of  a  few  importers  that  you 
Unow  who  are  compelled  to  contribute  tariff  funds  to 
inn  tills  nation  and  do  not  get  It  back  from  the  con- 
sumers. 

A  clear,  concise  answer  to  above  q^uestloms  would 
add  much  to  the  information  of  myself  and  others  who 
are  not  informed  as  to  the  above.'  Yours  respectfully. 
SAMUEL  HOLMES. 

Beason,  lU.,  May  20,  1891. 

I  am  somewhat  in  doubt  as  to  whether  this 
correspondent  has  so  shaped  'his  first  inquiry  as 
to  ask  the  real  question  he  intended  to.  No  duty 
is  ever  levied  on  any  article  produced  in  this 
country,  but  we  do  levy  duties  on  similar  arti- 
cles that  are  produced  in  other  countries,  and 
fiuoh.  duties  are  paid  only  on  such  articles  as  come 
in  from  abroad,  and  never  on  any  articles  When 
produced  in  this  country. 

iWhen  a  duty  is  levied  on  any  kind  of  an  arti- 


cle none  of  wMch  is  produced  in  the  United 
States,  of  course  more  money  woukl  go  into  the 
Treasury  from  that  duty  than  would  Ije  collected 
from  duties  on  that  kind  of  goods  if  part  of  them 
were  produced  in  this  country.  For  example, 
if  one-half  the  starch  used  by  our  people  were 
made  in  our  own  country,  and  one-half  of  it 
abroad  and  a  tariff  dutj'  should  be  levied  on 
starch,  as  a  matter  of  course  only  one-half  as 
much  money  would  be  collected  from  the  duty 
on  starch  in  that  ca.se  as  woulfl  be  collected  from 
that  same  duty  if  we  consumed  the  same  amount 
of  starch  and  made  none  of  it  here  but  imported 
it  all.  It  seems  to  me  he  might  just  as  well 
have  asked  me  whether  the  whole  of  a  thing 
is  greater  than  a  part  of  it.  Such  a  question 
leads  one  to  fear  that  it  is  not  asked  in  good 
faith.  In  my  work  I  am  always  striving  to  get 
at  the  truth,  and  it  is  not  pleasant  to  have  ques- 
tions asked  except  in  that  same  spirit.  I  hope 
my  fears  are  groundless,  and  I  will  not  take 
counsel  of  them,  but  will  answer  him  candidly 
as  one  really  seeldng  information. 

In  reply  to  the  second  question,  will  say  that 
in  the  article  he  refers  to  I  used  the  term  poor 
as  applying  to  those  people  in  England  who  own 
no  lands,  no  houses,  very  little  of  any  kind  of 
property,  and  who  live  from  hand  to  mouth  upon 
their  daily  earnings,  such  as  they  are.  I  used 
the  term  rich  nabobs  as  applying  to  rich  ipeo- 
ple— the  titled  nobility— the  few  land-owners 
and  the  wealthy  merchants  and  bankers  of  Eng- 
land. Does  Mr.  Holmes  dispute  the  statement 
as  to  the  comparative  number  of  these  two 
classes?  Now,  he  wants  to  know  on  the  same 
basis  what  proportion  of  the  people  in  the  United 
States  are  rich  and  what  poor.  I  have  not  the 
data  at  hand,  so  as  to  be  exact,  but  nowhere 
near  as  large  a  proportion  as  Will  be  found  in 
England.  I  will  venture  this  statement  that 
when  you  get  among  what  are  usually  called  the 
common  people,  you  will  find  in  the  United  States 
twenty  men  who  are  in  comfortable  circumstances 
where  you  will  find  one  in  Great  Britain.  Again, 
you  will  find  in  Great  Britain  one  hundred  poor 
people  born  in  that  country— I  mean  people  who 
have  not  a  hundred  dollars'  worth  of  anything  in 
the  world— where  you  will  find  one  born  and 
living  in  the  United  States  in  like  destitution. 
What  says  our  friend  Holmes  to  that  statement? 
Is  it  true  ?  Does  it  give  him  any  information  ?  Is 
he  able  to  learn  any  lesson  from  such  a  fact  ?  To 
me  it  is  full  of  meaning.  Is  not  this  answer  to  his 
second  interrogatory  definite  enough  for  all  prac- 
tical purposes? 

As  to  the  third  question,  it  is  impossible  for  me 
to  give  the  exact  proportion  of  tariff  duties  that 
are  paid  by  the  rich  and  by  the  poor  in  the 
United  States.  So  much  of  these  duties  is  paid 
by  the  foreign  producers  in  order  to  get  their 
goods  into  our  markets  that  the  problem  is  a 
difficult  one.  Then  again  a  very  large  amount 
of  our  duties  is  collected  upon  luxuries,  articles 
that  are  used  only  by  the  rich.  We  levy  duties 
on  that  grade  of  goods  even  when  they  are  not 
produced  in  this  country,  and  when  we  know 
such  duty  will  increase  the  cost  of  the  article  and 
wUl  be  collected  trom  the  consumers.     But  suoU 


lilG    IsavaS    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


31 


consumers  can  nlTonl  U>  pay,  and  iii  suck  ciises  the 
■duty  is  for  rpveiiiip  only.  Tlie  duty  on  diamonds, 
Telvet  car|)cts,  higli-priccd  chinaware,  ricli  laces, 
expensive  sillcs  and  costly  liquors  is  largely  tluu 
kind  of  a  duty,  l)ut  none  of  it  is  paid  by  the 
iahoring  classes.  Indeed,  onr  worlting  people  use 
very  few  goods  that  are  imported  from  abroad 
wliioh  are  not  either  on  the  free  list  or  wliich 
are  not  of  those  olassi'S,  of  which  our  manu- 
facturers have  reduced  the  price,  so  that  our 
people  are  getting  tlicui  much  cheaper  than  they 
would  be  a1)le  to  had  we  not  established 
the  making  of  them  in  the  United  States.  T 
state  that  as  a  simple  fact,  not  as  a  theory.  Is  it 
or  is  it  not  true?  Since  sugar  is  on  tiie  free 
list  very  few  duties  are  paid  by  our  poorer  peo- 
ple. That  was  a  free-trade  tariff,  and  should  have 
been  rcpealocl  long  ago.  A  large  part  of  tliat 
duty  did  come  out  of  tlie  laboring  classes.  Yet 
the  Free-Traders  and  Taritf  Ktformers  in  Congress 
voted  .solidly  against  removing  that  dut.y.  Wliat 
says  our  correspondent,  was  that  or  was  it  not 
a  good  thing  to  do?  Free  sug-.ir  was  one  of  the 
leading  features  of  tlic  McKitiley  bill.  It  has 
cheapened  sugar  for  ever.v  family  in  the  United 
States.  Do  not  forget  that  the  duty  on  sugar 
was  a  revenue  duty,  not  a  prot-cotive  duty;  and 
such  duties  are  nearly  always  paid  by  the  consum- 
ers. 

Fourth— The  duties  collected  on  the  importation 
of  foreign  goods  during  the  year  1890  amounted  to 
the  sum  of  §325,428,888,  of  which  Sr)5,16l>,7  03  40 
"were   collected  on  sugar  and   molasses. 

Your  fifth  and  last  question  is  one  that  I 
am  under  no  obligation  to  answer.  So  far  as  I 
now  remember  I  have  never  claimed  that  any 
mere  importers  ever  did  much  to  help  run  this 
Nation.  As  a  rule  'they  are  simply  middlemen, 
who  get  all  they  can  and  pay  nothing  e.Kcept 
what  they  can  charge  up  to  their  consumers. 
Our  own  merchants  often  do  their  own  import>- 
ing  and  i>ay  tlie  duties  tliemselves,  and  then  of 
course  tliey  count  sucli  duties  as  a  part  of  the 
cost  of  such  goods  and  charge  their  consumers 
accordingly.  But  that  does  not  prove  that  the 
duty  is  not  paid  by  the  foreign  producer.  If 
he  has  taken  the  duty  out  of  his  price  on  the 
goods  the  merchant  may  pay  the  Government 
the  money,  but  it  comes,  all  the  same,  from  the 
foreign  ma.nufactui-er  and  is  not  added  to  the 
cost  of  the  articles  to  the  ultimate  consumer.  Let 
me  illustrate.  I  need  some  horses,  we  will  say, 
to  do  work  in  the  pine  woods.  The  price  of 
horses  is  fixed  by  the  market  in  this  country. 
The  home  supply  is  so  great  that  the  price  ia 
fixed  here.  I  conclude  to  buy  some  horses  in 
Canada.  I  go  there,  and  do  I  pay  the  Canadian 
his  price  for  a  team,  without  regard  to  the  duty  ? 
By  no  means.  I  compel  him  to  put  such  a  price 
on  that  team  as  will  enable  me  to  pay  the  duty 
and  leave  the  cost  for  me  just  what  I  would 
have  given  him  for  the  team  if  no  duty  was 
charged.  If  you  do  not  think  so,  go  over  there 
and  try  to  buy  a  pair  of  pure-blooded  mares  and 
see  how  you  will  come  out.  The  Canadian  farmer 
will  ask  you  for  the  mares  of  the  same  quaUty 
for  working  purposes  §60  more  than  for  a  span 
of  geldings.     Why?     Simply  because  he  can  sell 


his  mnres  tor  breeding  purposes,  and  they  come 
into  this  country  free  of  duty.  It  will  l)e  use- 
less for  you  to  tell  him  that  you  want  them  for 
work.  His  reply  wiU  be,  "  Then  hunt  up  another 
team,  and  I  will  hunt  up  another  customer.  If 
I  sell  tliem  to  you  simply  as  work  animals  I  must 
deduct  the  amount  of  the  duty  before  you  will 
purchase  thera ;  but  as  'brood  manes'  there  is 
no  duty."  He  knows  very  well  who  must  pay 
the  duty  on  a  work  team.  Am  I  right  about  this 
or  not?  It  seems  to  me  so  clear  that  I  am  some- 
times inclined  to  get  out  of  patience  with  a  man 
who  says  he  cannot  see  it.  If  sueli  is  not  the 
case,  pray  why  do  the  foreign  producers  care  so 
much  wlicther  a  duty  is  high  or  low?  If  our 
people,  the  consumers,  pay  the  duty,  then  the 
foreign  producers  can  get  the  same  price  lor  their 
goods,  be  the  duty  high  or  low.  Wliy  do  the 
foreign  producers  get  up  mass-meetings  and  de- 
nounce our  tariff  laws  it  it,  makes  no  dilTerence 
in  the  price  they  can  get  for  their  wares?  Let 
me  tell  you  simply  as  a  matter  of  information 
wiiy  they  act  in  the  way  they  do;  why  they 
send  up  such  a  cry  ot  distress  the  moment  the 
duty  is  increased  in  this  country  on  any  class 
of  goods  that  they  have  been  selling  largely  in 
the  United  States.  It  is  simply  because  they  know 
from  past  experience  that  such  a  tariff  will  start 
tlie  making  ot  the  same  kind  of  goods  in  the 
United  States ;  that  the  producers  in  the  United 
States  will  drive  down  the  price,  and  that  if 
they  get  their  goods  into  our  markets  after  that 
they  v'lil  have  to  do  so  by  payni!,-  the  duty  them- 
selves, and  that  the  sum  paid  will  never  come 
back  to  them  from  the  American  consumer.  Know- 
ing that,  no  wonder  they  protest.  There  is  no 
theory  about  this ;  it  is  a  simple  statement  of 
facts  as  to  what  has  taken  place  scores  and 
scores  of  times  within  my  memory.  Such  a 
result  has  always  followed  the  levying  of  a  duty 
on  the  protective  plan. 

If  I  am  not  correct  about  this,  why  do  the  for- 
eign manufacturers  all  claim  that  these  duties 
really  come  out  of  them  ?  They  do  so  claim 
in  their  public  utterances  and  in  their  carefully- 
prepared  resolutions.  You  never  hear  any  such 
claim  made  as  to  free-trade  duties.  Why  ?  Be- 
cause duties  levied  on  articles  that  camiot  be 
economically  produced  in  tliis  country  do  not  lead 
to  the  production  of  any  such  articles  over  here, 
create  no  new  supply,  bring  about  no  competi. 
tion,  and  so  leave  the  markets  still  open  to  the 
same  vendors,  and  whatever  the  duty  is  it  does 
not  come  out  of  the  producers,  but  out  of  the 
consumers.  The  moment  you  le^-y  a  protective 
duty  on  any  article  that  can  be  economically 
produced  in  this  country,  you  instantly  set  our 
people  to  producing  that  article,  and  then  we  com- 
pel the  foreign  producer  of  similar  goods  to  pay 
the  duty  if  he  would  get  into  our  markets.  AIL 
of  those  foreign  producers  will  tell  you  that  the 
duty  comes  out  of  them.  Do  they  or  do  they  not 
know  how  that  is  ?  So  my  answer  to  yoiu'  last 
question  is  that  every  foreign  manufactm-er  who 
sells  any  article  of  merchandise  in  the  United 
States  on  which  a  tariff  has  been  levied,  if  similar 
articles  are  being  economically  produced  in  large 
quantities  in  this  country  by  our  own  manufact- 


33 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


urers,  then  every  one  of  such  foreign  manufact- 
urers is  compelled  to  contribute  to  the  support  of 
this  Government,  in  order  to  get  into  our  mar- 
kets, and  he  does  not  collect  the  money  s,o  paid 
baok  from  the  consumers.  It  is  invaribly  deducted 
from  the  price  paid  the  foreign  producers  by  our 
merchants,  and  so  there  is  nothing  to  collect  back. 
You  ask  for  a  clear  and  concise  answer  to  your 
questions.  My  answers  are  clear  to  my  own 
mind,  but  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  tell  whether 
they  will  satisfy  you.  I  have  not  aimed  at  brevity. 
but  have  tried  not  to  be  obscure.  You  may  not 
be  convinced,  but  what  I  try  to  do  is  to  so  state 
my  propositions  that  any  one  can  readily  see  what 
I  am  trying  to  get  at.  I  hope  I  have  at  least 
done  that  much  in  this  instance.     E.  G.  HOEE. 


THE  TARIFF  A  BLESSING. 


A    CLEAN-CUT    STATEMENT    OF    THE   REAL 
DOCTRINE   OF   PROTECTION. 


SOME     COMPIilOATED     AND     PONDEROUS     QUES- 
TIONS,   IN  ■  THE    PUREST    IDIOM    OE    THE 
"  HIGHER     CULTURE  "     OF     BOSTON, 
OLBARLT  AND  HAND- 

SOMELT     ANSWERED. 

To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir-  Mr.  Horr  slated  substantially  April  15  In 
Tremont  Temple  that  protection  stands  or  faUs  vrith 
the  proposition  that  protection  Itts  cheapened  the  price 
of  our  protected  goods.  I  respectfully  submit,  in  be- 
half of  the  Boston  Question  Club,  the  following  ques- 
tions for  your  tjioughtful  consideration,  and  hope  for 
an  early  reply : 

1.  Why,  if  it  cheapens  tlungs,  should  a  tariff  he  put 
on  and  thus  cheapen  wheat  and  other  products,  which 
form  such  a  large  percentage  of  our  exports  ?  Is  it 
desirable  for  us  thus  to  cheapen  for  foreigners  the  main 
bulk  of  what  we  have  to  sell  abroad  ? 

2.  Wlule  claiming,  by  our  protective  tarifl,  to  have 
cheapened  the  price  of  steel  rails,  glassware,  cffocliery, 
carpets,  etc.,  why  do  Protectionists  aslr,  JlcKinley-hke, 
In  the  same  breath,  for  an  increase  of  tariff  on  these 
self-same  articles,  to  compcusato  them  for  the  greater 
decline  of  pcice  in  free-trade  England?  Is  not  the 
necessity  of  increasing  our  protection  from  being  under- 
sold by  Free  Traders  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  greater 
declhie  of  their  commodity  prices  t]ian  of  oucs?  Is 
not  the  very  asking  of  an  increased  rate  of  protective 
duty  on  an  article  an  open  confession  that  Its  price 
has  declined  more  rapidly  outside  than  inside  our  pro- 
tected borders  ?  Else  why  should  we  now  need  hlglier 
duties  than  in  ISeo  ? 

3.  H 's  not  the  direct  primary  mtent  and  effect  of 
^ariS  protection  from  being  undersold  generally  been 
to  increase  the  prices  of  these  protected  goods  ?  Then, 
unless  reaction  is  greater  than  its  parent  action,  how 
can  the  tariff's  reactionary,  price-reducing  effect  be 
greater  than  its  primary  price-increasiiig  effect? 

4.  Does  not  this  primacy  dearncss  proportionally 
check  consumption  and  consequent  production,  thus 
diametrically  opposmg  that  enlarged  scale  of  the 
world's  production  which  is  so  undeniably  essential  t/O 
cheapness!  D.  WEBSTER  GEOH, 

President  Boston  Question  Club. 
No.  616  Wasliington-st.,  Boston,  April  18,  1S91. 


In  answer  to  this  letter  from  so  high  a  source 
as  the  Boston  Question  Club,  permit  m»s  first  to 
restate  just  what  positions  I  did  take  in  the  Tre- 
mont Temple  debate,  and  what  I  also  believe  to 
be  the  positions  taken  by  all  Protectionists  who 
have  given  the  subject  careful  study.  The  state- 
ments which  I  made  at  that  time,  as  clearly  as- 
was  in  my  power,  were  these : 

WHAT  MR.  HORR  SAID  IN  BOSTON. 

1.  That  there  is  no  civilized  nation  in  the 
world  that  does  tnot  levy  some  Irind  of  ta,riir, 
duties  and  hence  there  is  no  such  nation  known 
as  a  purely  free-trade  nation.  Is  that  statement 
true  or  not  ?  What  says  the  Boston  Question  Club  ? 
The  members  of  that  club  may  believe  in  abso- 
lute free  trade  ;  may  believe  that  all  custom  houses 
should  be  demolished.  I  know  nothing  as  to 
where  they  stand  upon  that  question,  nor  does  it 
matter  in  this  debate,  because  that  is  not  the 
position  against  which  I  was  arguing  that  night. 
What  I  desire  to  do  in  the  outset  is  to  see  if  we 
cannot  agree,  as  I  go  along,  on  certain  existing 
facts  and  so  in  the  end  eliminate  many  difficulties 
from  this  discussion. 

2.  I  stated  that  among  civilized  nations  there 
are  two  methods  of  levying  tariff  duties.  One  is 
called  the  free-trade  method ;  the  other  is  desig- 
nated as  the  protective  system.  I  then  stated 
that  under  the  free-trade  plan  duties  are  always 
levied  on  articles  which  the  nation  levying  them 
does  not  produce,  and  that  under  the  protective 
system  such  articles  (except  luxuries)  are  put 
on  the  tree  list,  and  that  we  levy  our  duties  on 
importations  of  those  articles  which  our  nation 
does  or  can  produce.  I  cited  the  case  of  Great 
Britain,  as  an  instance  of  a  nation  which  levies 
its  duties  on  the  free-trade  plan.  I  stated  that  she 
ooUeots  over  §100,000,000  each  year  by  reason 
of  tarifl!  duties,  and  that  the  great  bulk  of  those 
revenues  are  levied  on  tea,  coft'ee  and  tobacco.  Am 
I  right  in  those  statemeniB  ? 

I  further  claimed  that  whenever  a  tariff  is 
levied  on  this  free-trade  plan  (that  is  to  say,  on 
goods  the  like  of  which  are  not  produced  or  can- 
not be  produced  in  the  country  where  the  duty 
is  levied)  that  such  a  duty  always  increases  the 
cost  of  the  article  to  the  ultimate  consumer;  and 
when  levied  on  such  articles  as  tea,  coffee  and 
tobacco,  which  are  in  such  common  use,  that  such 
duties  must  be  paid  mostly  by  the  working  people 
of  any  nation  which  levies  that  kind  of  a  tariff. 
Will  the  Boston  Question  Club  turn  itself  into 
an  answering  club  and  tell  me  whether  that  posi- 
tion is  correct? 

England  collects  as  I  have  stated  very  large 
tariff  duties  on  those  three  articles.  Who  pays 
those  duties  ?  Most  clearly  the  men  who  consume 
the  tea,  coffee  and  tobacco.  As  in  England  the 
poorer  people  number  fuUy  six  hundred  to  every 
one  rich  nabob,  and,  as  each  one  of  those  poor 
people  cohsumcs  nearly  l-he  same  amount  of  those 
articles  that  each  rich  person  does,  it  follows 
that  the  great  bulk  of  those  duties  are  collected 
from  the  laboring  classes.     Is  that  a  fact? 

My  next  statement  was,  that  under  the  pro- 
tective system  articles  the  like  of  which  we  can- 
not produce  are  placed  on  the  free  list,  and  that 


BIG    ISSUKS    OF    AK    OFF    YE.\JR. 


33 


v/e  levy  our  iliities  on  foreign  articles  the  like 
of  which  we  can  produce  in  this  country  for  two 
purposes:  Fii«t,  to  obtain  revenue.  Secondly, 
to  give  our  own  people  control  of  our  own  markets 
and  tluis  foster  and  huild  up  Industries  in  the 
United  States,  and  secure  good  wages  to  our  work- 
ing people.  I  then  stated  that  such  duties  are 
paid  lart'ely  by  the  foreign  manufacturers  who 
are  compelled  to  make  these  payments  in  order 
to  get  into  our  markets  witli  their  surplus  goods, 
and  that  such  duties  are  seldom  added  to  the  cost 
of  the  aricle  to  the  ultimate  consumers.  Is  that 
or  is  it  not  true  ? 

3.  I  further  claimed  that  duties  levied  on  the 
protective  plan  tend  to  build  up  industries  here 
in  tlie  Liiitcd  States;  that  under  that  system  a 
very  liirge  numl)er  of  mauufaoturing  establish- 
iiienis  have  been  biiQt  and  run  in  this  country 
for  mii-iy  years  wliich  never  would  have  beeu 
established  and  maintained  had  it  not  been  for 
the  protection  thus  given.     Is  that  a  fact? 

4.  Sly  next  position  was  that  when  such  in- 
dustries are  once  established,  they  open  up  a  field 
for  American  irmenuit.v,  set  in  motion  the  spirit 
of  Yankee  invention,  and,  by  large  and  uninter- 
rupted operations,  cheapen  the  actual  cost  of  pro- 
duction, bring  into  power  the  great  law  of  com- 
petition, save  the  enormous  fees  of  the  importers 
and,  by  all  these  agencies  combined,  result  in 
these  products  being  sold  to  the  ultimate  con- 
sumers at  a  lower  price  than  when  these  goods 
■were  procured  from  abroaii,  and  in  all  jirobability 
at  a  lower  price  than  they  would  have  l)een  sold  for 
had  no  such  industries  Ijeen  estabhshed  here  in 
the  United  States.  Do  not  'the  facts  bear  me 
out  in  that  statement? 

I  then  stated  that  unless,  in  the  end,  this  sys- 
tem does  result  in  cheapening  the  cost  of  goods 
to  the  ultimate  consumers,  and  also  in  paj'ing 
labor  Oetter  wages  than  it  receives  in  any  other 
countries,  then  I  would  abandon  my  belief  in 
protection. 

I  further  asked  that  my  free-trade  friends  sliould 
agree,  if  I  could  show  that  such  protected  arti- 
cles had  been  constantly  going  down  in  price 
since  we  began  their  manufacture  in  this  coun- 
try, and  that  during  all  that  time  labor  had 
been  better  paid  than  in  any  country  which  levied 
a  free-trade  tariff,  then,  in  that  event,  they  should 
■stop  calling  the  protective  system  "robbery"  and 
should  admit  that  it  had  worked  well  for  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  I  now  submit  to 
the  members  of  the  Boston  Question  Club  whether 
these  are  not  precisely  the  positions  I  took  in 
that  debate. 

I  next  stated  that  whether  the  price  of  such 
protected  goods  had  gone  down  or  up  in  the  past 
thirty  years  of  our  protective  tariff  is  a 
question  of  fact  and  not  a  question  of  theory. 
During  all  those  years  we  had  tried  the  plan  thor- 
Qughly  and  knew  how  it  worked.  I  then  cited  the 
cheapening  of  steel  rails,  cutlery,  salt,  farming  im- 
plements, glassware,  cotton  goods,  clothing,  all 
kinds  of  silk  goods,  wire  nails,  paper  and  paper 
pulp,  etc.,  etc.  1  closed  by  asking  any  one  in  the 
audience  to  name  a  single  article,  the  bulk  of  which 
we  produce  in  this  country  under  the  protective 
system,  that  has  not  been  thus  cheapened.     Did 


my  opponent  name  one  ?  The  president  of  the  Bos- 
ton Question  Club,  who  seems  to,  have  been  pres- 
ent, did  not  name  one ;  he  has  not  named  one  in  his 
letter,  but  has  gone  bade  to  theorizing.  I  now  ask 
again  is  that  sta'ement  correct  ?  Aiu  such  an  icles 
all  cheaper  now  ilian  tliey  were  before  we  began 
their  production  in  this  country? 

5.  I  further  stated  that  a  tariff  levied  for  reve- 
nue only  always  places  the  rate  of  duty  at  a  point 
which  will  produce  the  most  revenue  for  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  that  such  a  tarilV,  of  necessity,  gives 
fweign  protlueers  command  of  our  markets  and  is 
to  all  intents  and  pui-poses  a  free-trade  tarilf ;  and 
further,  that  from  such  a  tarilf  none  of  the  ad- 
vantages of  the  protective  system  can  possibly  fol- 
low.    Is  nut  that  statement  also  true  ? 

WHY  A  FEW  DUTIES  WERE  INCRE.\SED. 
I  will  no.w  turn  my  attention  to  the  statements 
in  Mr.  Groh's  letter,  and  will  begin  witli  tlie  second 
question,  leaving  the  first  one  for  the  closing  of 
this  article.  The  first  pact  of  the  second  question 
is  as  follows :  "  While  claiming  by  our  protective 
tariff  to  have  cheapened  the  price  of  steel 
rails,  glassware,  crockei-y,  carpets,  etc., 
vAhy  do  Protectionists  ask,  McKinley-like,  in 
the  same  breath,  for  an  increase  of  tariff 
on  tliese  same  articles,  to  compensate  them  for 
a  greater  decline  of  price  in  free-trade  England  ?" 
My  answer  is  that  the  duty  in  the  McKinley 
bill  on  steel  rails  and  ou  over  140  other  articles 
is  decreaseti  and  not  increased,  and  tliat  where  it 
is  increased,  it  is  not  done  for  the  purpose  of 
compensating  Protectionists  or  any  one  else  for  the 
decline  of  prices  in  the  Old  World  ;  but  in  every 
instance  it  is  increased  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
our  own  manufacturers  t«  carry  on  their  business 
without  a  loss,  and  continue  to  pay  the  larger 
wages  prevalent  in  this  country.  There  is  not  an 
instance,  so  far  as  1  am  aware,  of  an  incre.ise  of 
duty  in  the  McKinley  bill,  where  such  increase 
was  not  made  simply  to  foster  and  build  up  the 
manufacture  of  that  article  in  this  country— for 
the  simple  purpose  ol  protecting  that  industry. 

Pray,  of  what  use  would  a  tariff  for  the  purpose 
of  protection  be  if  it  were  not  high  enough  to 
protect  ?  We  have  no  power  to  determine  at  what 
starvation  point  the  foreign  manufacturer  shall 
compel  his  workmen  to  toU^  but  we  have  the 
power  to  prevent  him  from  driving  the  wages  of 
our  own  workmen  down  to  anywhere  near  the  same 
point.  So,  wherever  it  was  found  that  the  tarifE 
formerly  levied  on  an  article  had  not  been  suffi- 
cient to  protect  oui-  workers  in  that  particular 
industry,  then  it  was  increased  simply  and  solely  to 
enable  our  producers  to  keep  control  of  our  mar- 
kets, to  insure  good  wages,  and  to  enable  our 
factories  to  be  run  continuously  so  as  to  cheapen 
the  cost  ol  production. 

DECLINE  OP  PRICES  ABROAD. 
"Is  not,"  the  club  asks,  "the  very  asking  of 
an  increased  rate  of  protective  duty  on  an  article 
a  confession  that  its  price  has  declined  more  rapidly 
outside  than  inside  our  protected  borders  ?"  It 
may  or  it  may  not  be  such  an  admission;  but 
whether  it  is  or  not,  what  has  that  to  do  with 
this  question?  What  Protectionist  ever  claimed 
that  the  building  up  of  our  home  industries  did 


34 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AlSf    OFF    YEAE. 


not   also    clieapen   tne    product   abroad  ?        I   as- 
suredly made  no  such  claim. 

Of  course  the  establishing  of  a  large  industry 
in  the  United  States  and  the  production  on  a  large 
scale  of  any  article  of  merchandise  will  increase 
the  supply,  aiid  the  tendency  wiU  be  to  drive  down 
the'  price  of  that  article  all  over  the  world.  No 
doubt  steel  rails  have  been  produced  in  England 
cheaper  and  cheaper,  the  same  as  they  have  in  the 
United  States.  We  soon  took  advantage  of  all 
their  improvements.  They  soon  took  advantage 
ol  all  our  inventions.  And  hereafter,  just  so  long 
as  they  pay  only  one-half  as  much  for  labor  as  we 
pay,  no  doubt  they  will  constantly  reduce  their 
price  of  production,  the  same  as  we  do  ours.  But 
what  has  that  to  do  with  the  question?  The 
real  thing  that  must  be  decided  is  this :  What 
would  have  been  the  price  of  steel  rails,  not  alone 
in  the  United  States,  but  all  over  the  world,  if  we 
had  never  established  the  industry  in  this  country 
and  had  never  made  the  large  quantities  we  pro- 
duce here  at  home  ? 

I  assert  that  the  history  of  the  productions  of 
our  country  demonstrates  beyond  all  power  of 
contradiction  that  in  case  there  liad  be<>n  no  sup- 
ply here  there  would  never  have  been  any  such 
decline  in  prices  anywhere.  If  this  is  not  the  case, 
will  the  Boston  Question  Club  tell  me  why  tin- 
plate  has  not  been  cheapened  within  the  last 
twenty  years  here  in  the  Uuited  States  the  same 
as  other  products  of  steel  and  iron  have  been 
cheapened  ?  The  part  of  tin-plate  which  is  pro- 
tected by  our  tariff  is  the  96  per  cent  of  that 
article  which  is  iron  or  steel.  If  free  trade  in  any 
article  would  lead  to  the  establishment  of  an 
industry,  why  have  we  not  been  making  our  own 
tin-plate  for  the  past  twenty  years  ?  And  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  protection  does  not  lead  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  an  industry,  |Vhy  is  it  that  the 
passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  has  already  started  so 
many  companies  irito  e'^iiatence  which  are  now . 
preparing  to  manufacture  those  goods  in  this 
country  ? 

Dare  the  Boston.-  Question  Club  accept  the  re- 
sult in  this  one  industry  as  a  test  of  its  free-trade 
theories,  as  against  the  protective  system  ?  If 
the  doctrines  of  its  free-trade  members  are  true, 
tin-plate,  from  this  on,  will  be  continually  dearer 
to  the  consumers  in  the  United  States.  If  the  pro- 
tective doctrine  is  true,  then  when  these  indus- 
tries are  once  fully  established  they  will  increase 
the  supply,  improve  the  methods  of  manufacture, 
dispense  with  the  large  commissions  paid  to  the 
middle  men,  and  in  the  end  will  cheapen  tin-plate 
to  the  ultimate  consumers  of  this  country.  I  am 
ready  now  and  willing  to  accept  the  result  in  this 
case  as  a  test  of  the  truthfulness  of  my  position. 
Time  will  soon  show  which  theory  is  the  correct 
one.  Dare  the  Free-Tr^de  Question  Club  of  Bos- 
ton accept  so  simple  a  solution  of  this  question  ? 

I  ask  again,  who  ever  claimed  that  the  result 
of  building  up  an  industry,  and  so  cheapening 
the  article,  in  this  country  has  not  resulted  in  its 
also  -being  cheapened  abroad  ?  That,  of  course, 
is  always  the  result.  The  moment  you  take  away 
the  markets  of  this,  country,  you  .create  a  glut 
in  the  Old  World,  and  you  may  drive  down  the 
price  faster  over  there  than  here  ;  and  yet  it  would 


often  be  the  case  that  the  oheapeniug  of  the 
article,  here  or  there,  would  never  have  occurrecE 
had  the  industry  never  been  built  up  here.  So. 
if  we  should  permit  our  industries  to  be  crippled, 
and  finally  ruined,  the  supply  would  Ije  less,  and 
the  price  would  again  advance  all  over  the  world. 
The  simple  law  of  supply  and  demand,  other  things- 
being  equal,  would  produce  that  result.  England 
may  alwaj'S  undersell  us  in  price  just  so  long  as. 
she  gets  her  labor  for  one-half  the  price  we  pay 
for  ours.  Hence  it  becomes  a  simple  question  of 
the  wages  of  the  workingmen.  What  says  the 
Boston  Question  Club  ?  Are  wages  better  in  this- 
country  than  they  are  in  free-trade  England  ?' 
Do  you  beheve  in  legislating  so  as  to  keep  good 
wages  in  this  country  or  not  ? 

DIRECT    ACTION    AND    BACK    ACTION. 

Your  third  question  starts  out :  "  Has  not  the- 
direct,  primary  intent  and  effect  of  tariff  pro- 
tection from  being  undersold  generally  been  to  in- 
crease the  price  of  those  protective  articles  ?''  No,, 
far  from  it.  Of  coui'se  the  intent  is  to  prevent 
foreigners,  from  underselling  us  in  our  own  mar- 
kets, and  that  has  seldom  ever  resulted  in  an  in- 
erease,  either  primarily  or  secondarily,  in  the 
price  of  protected  goods.  But  even  should  an  in- 
crease take  place  in  the  price  for  a  short  season, 
while  our  manufacturers  are  getting  the  business- 
in  hand,  that  will  very  e,oon  be  made  up  by  the 
decrease  in  price  which  uniformly  follows.  Hence, 
the  only  question  of  importance  is  whether  our 
system  results  in  a  permanent  reduction  of  prices. 
As  to  the  second  part  of  this  third  question,  I 
have  not  the  slightest  idea  what  it  means.  I  am 
not  posted  on  the  great  doctrines  of  actions  and 
reactions,  know  nothing  of  the  laws  that  govern 
double  and  twisted  reflex  action  or  back  action, 
and  do  not  at  present  propose  to  tackle  that  sub. 
ject.  I  did  not  know,  until  your  letter  stated 
it,  that  reaction  is  the  child  of  action.  All  this 
m!^  be  very  profound,  but  it  is  entirely  too  deep 
for  me.  Life  is  too  short  to  be  taken  up  with 
that  kind  of  play  on  words. 

"  PRIMARY    DEARNESiS." 

4.  "  Does  not  this  primary  dearness  proportion- 
ately check  consumption  and  consequent  produc- 
tion, thus  diametricaUy  opposing  that  enlarged 
scale  of  the  world's  production,  which  is  so  un- 
deniably  essential  to  cheapness  ?'' 

No ;  it  does  nothing  of  the  kind. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  seldom  any  "'  primary 
dearness." 

In  the  second  place,  the  consumption  of  an 
article  depends  very  much  more  on  the  wages  of 
the  masses,  which  enable  them  to  have  something 
to  purchase  goods  with,  than  it  does  upon  th© 
cheapness  of  any  articles.  The  consumption  of 
articles  has  constantly  increased  under  the  protec- 
tive system. 

No  doubt  large  and  constant  production  always 
leads  to  the  cheapness  of  goods.  The  very  aim 
and  intent  of  the  protective  system  is  to  enable 
the  people  o  f  the  United  States  who  produce  manu- 
factured goods  to  run  their  factories  continuously 
month  in  and  month  out,  year  in  and  year  out. 
That  is  the  great  factor  in  producing  cheap  goods 
all  over  the  world.     So  Important  is  this  that  a 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


35 


large  cstablisUuiciit  winking  iu\l  time  the  whole 
year  round  can  pay  a  larger  price  for  its  raw 
material,  pay  larger  wages  to  its  workingmen,  and 
then  undersell  to  the  ullimate  consumer,  the  men 
who  employ  cheaper  labor,  who  consume  cheaper 
raw  miiterial,  but  who  work  witli  many  interrui^ 
tions.  Is  that  a  fact,  or  is  it  not?  I  say  it  is. 
Wliat  does  the  Boston  Question  Club  say? 

WILL  PROTKCTION'  CHEAPEN  WHEAT. 

I  now  come  to  your  lirst  question  :  "  Wliy,  if 
it  cheapens  things,  should  the  tariff  be  put  on, 
and  thus  cheapen  wheat  and  other  products  which 
form  such  a  large  per  cent  of  our  exports?" 
Listen !  It  does  not  follow  because  a  protective 
tariff,  wliicli  leads  up  to  large  factories  and  gives 
constant  employment  to  large  numbers  of  men, 
and  thus  cnaliles  them  to  take  the  greatest  ad- 
vantage of  labor-saving  machinery  and  the  great 
power  of  the  division  of  labor,  and  so  cheapens 
products— 1  say,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  same 
rule  will  apply  to  the  products  of  the  farmer. 
Farmers'  products  are  not  manufactured  in  a  weelc 
or  a  day.  The  price  of  farm  products  depends 
largely  on  matters  entirely  outside  of  the  cheap- 
ness of  labor  or  the  continuous  operation  of  mills. 
The  wheat  crop  can  be  raised  only  once  in  a  j'ear. 
No  invention,  no  continuity  of  labor,  will  pro- 
duce a  greater  number  of  crops.  Tlie  amount  of 
wheat  raised  is  limited  by  the  amount  of  acreage. 
There  are  no  such  limitations  upon  those  produc- 
ing manufactured  goods. 

I  do  not  claim  that  the  tariff  on  wheat  in  the 
United  States,  at  the  present  time,  will  have  very 
much  bearing  upon  its  price,  so  long  as  we  export 
that  article  largely.  A  taritT  on  that  article 
just  now  has  very  little  effect,  nor  was  the  tariff 
placed  on  wheat  with  a  view  of  affecting  its  price 
materially  at  the  present  time.  Such,  however, 
was  nut  the  case  with  mosf  farm  products.  The 
production  of  wheat  in  the  United  States,  in  ex- 
cess of  our  own  consumption,  is  growing  less  and 
less  each  year.  There  has  been  a  decline  of  about 
10,000,000  bushels  a  year  for  the  past  ten  years. 
In  a  little  while  the  entire  product  of  wheat 
in  the  United  States  will  be  consumed  by  our 
own  people.  The  moment  that  that  point  is 
reached,  the  price  of  wheat  wUl  be  affected  by 
an  attempted  importation  of  wheat  from  abroad. 
When  that  time  arrives  the  farmers  of  this  coun- 
try will  need  protection  against  the  cheap  labor 
of  India  and  Russia. 

It  is  clear  to  me  that  the  law  which  cheapens 
the  price  of  manufactured  goods  by  continuous 
operation  of  large  factories  does  not  apply  with 
anything  like  the  same  force,  if  at  all,  to  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  soil.  Of  course  an  increased  price  of 
an  article  like  wheat  or  any  other  farm  product 
would  in  a  very  short  period  stimulate  the  pro- 
duction, and  result  perhaps  in  cheapening  the 
article ;  but  in  that  case  the  competition  would 
be  between  our  own  farmers  paying  the  same  price 
lor  their  labor,  and  all  contributing  to  the  support 
of  our  Government  alike.  Such  a  competition 
would  be  healthy  and  should  always  exist  in  every 
cotmtry.  That  is  entirely  a  different  thing  from 
permitting  the  people  of  every  nation  under  the 
gun  to  dump  their  surplus  farm  products  into  this 


country,  and  so  disturb  and  ruin  the  marJicts  of 
our  own  farmers. 

But  why  do  you  Free-Trade'rs  ask  me  this  ques- 
tion, You  claim  that  the  levying  of  a  duty  on  an 
article  itself  increases  the  price  of  tliat  article.  I 
believe  the  price  of  farm  products  has  been  too 
low  in  this  country  for  the  past  five  yeais.  You 
will  admit,  will  you  not,  that  an  article  may  be 
too  cheap  ?  Would  you  not  hke  to  do  something 
to  enable  the  farmers  to  get  a  better  price  for 
their  grain  and  horses  and  hogs  ?  What  says 
your  cliib  ?  The  McKiuley  bill  attempts  to  aid 
these  farmers  Viy  gi\ing  them  control  of  our  home 
markets.  Are  you  in  favor  of  that  or  not  ?  What 
says  the  Boston  Question  Club  ?  Would  you  like 
to  do  anytliing  that  would  give  these  farmers  re- 
lief? 

The  price  of  a  farmer's  products  determines  his 
wages.  The  constant  anxiety  of  every  Protection- 
ist is  so  to  manage  as  to  keep  up  the  price  of  labor 
in  the  United  States.  We  make  no  exception  as 
to  classes.  We  would  like  to  have  all  the  prod- 
ucts of  this  country  bring  a  fair  price.  All  the 
products  of  the  farm  are  too  cheap  the  moment 
they  get  below  a  point  which  gives  good  wages  to 
the  men  who  till  tlie  soil.  Tiie  same  may  be  said 
of  the  articles  produced  by  all  workmen.  Cheap- 
ness alone  does  not  determine  the  desirability  of 
any  system.  We  care  not  how  cheap  you  make 
an  article,  so  long  as  you  do  not  compel  the  ex- 
istence of  cheap  men  aud  women,  ciieap  laborers. 
Xo  nation  can  be  called  prosperous  that  adopts  any 
system  which  permanently  cheapens  the  work  of 
its  men  and  women  below  the  point  of  a  good,  de- 
cent li\-ing. 

The  same  law  which  might  increase  the  price 
of  the  product  of  the  farm  may  decrease  the  price 
of  manufactured  goods.  The  same  law  which 
wouki  raise  the  price  of  wool  in  the  market,  when 
ajjphed  to  continuous  manufacturing  of  wool  into 
[abrics,  might  result  in  cheapening  the  fabric. 
Existing  experimenis  prove  this  stateuient  to  be 
true.  The  result  of  the  Mclvirfty  bill,  I  hope  and 
beUeve,  will  be  to  increase  the  wool  product  of 
the  United  States,  to  give  farmers  a  better  price 
for  their  clip,  and  at  the  same  time  produce  better 
and  cheaper  worsted  goods  than  we  have  been  buy- 
ing in  this  country.  This  may  seem  anomalous  to 
the  members  of  the  Free  Trade  Club  of  Boston, 
but  it  is  clear  in  my  own  mind.  Here  again  the 
result  that  follows  will  be  the  test  of  whether  I 
am  right  or  wrong.  I  would  not  give  a  fig  for  any 
theory    if  the  facts  that  foUow  do  not  sustain  it. 

A    PIJSTAL    QUESTION    TO    THE    QUESTION    CLUB. 

I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  the  McKinley  bill 
will  restUt  in  giving  farmers  better  prices  for  their 
products,  and  also  in  keeping  the  price  of  manu- 
faotured  goods  low  for  the  ultimate  consumers  of 
these  goods ;  that  it  will  insure  good  wages  for  all 
laborers  in  the  United  States ;  keep  a  large  amount 
of  money  in  this  country  that  would  otherwise 
go  abroad :  and  thus,  while  securing  prosperity  to 
our  individuals,  will  build  up  and  enrich  this 
Nation.     I  really  beheve  this. 

If  Protection  shall  do  this,  then  will  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Boston  Question  Club  also  rally  tp  its 


36 


Bia  ISSUES  or  an  off  yeae. 


support?  You  predict  ruin  to  tMs  country  from 
the  operations  of  that  law.  I  promise  exactly  the 
opposite  results.  Time  will  demonstrate  which  oi 
us  is  correct.  It  will  then  be  an  existing  fact, 
not  a  theory. 

I  do  so  wish  that  I  could  get  you  Eree-Trade 
gentlemen  to  agree  to  abide  by  the  logic  of  some 
actual  event.  Visionary  men  are  always  theoriz- 
ing. Practical  business  men  are  always  watch- 
ing results.  One  takes  lessons  from  his  imagina- 
tion the  other  from  exjierience.       li.  G.  HOliR. 


IS     A     HIGH       TAEIFF       NECESSARY      FOE 
REVENUE  ? 

NO  ;    THAT   IS    NOT   THE   POINT    AT    ALL ;    A    HIGH 
TARIFJ'  IS  FOR   AN   ENTIRELT  DIF- 
FERENT   OBJECT. 
To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir:  I  would  be  pleased  if  Mr.  Horr  would  answer 
these  (luestions : 

First,  Does  It  not  take  $400,000,000  annually  to 
pay  the  expenses  of  the  general  Government  1  Cau  this 
amount  be  annually  raised  without  a  protective  tariff  1 

Second,  li  you  decrease  the  present  tariff  30  per 
cent,  as  the  Democrats  want,  what  amount  of  money 
will  be  actually  collected? 

Third,  If  we  had  free  coinage  of  silver  how  much 
more  money  would  be  in  circulation  than  we  now  have  t 

Fourth,  Is  not  the  Alliance  working  in  the  interest 
■of   the   Democratic  party?      Respectfully, 

C.  K.   BOSTICK. 

Henry,  Tenn.,  June  26,  1891. 

1.  The  expenses  of  the  General  Government 
are  fully  §400,000,000  each  year.  They  will 
■continue  to  reach  that  amount  so  long  as,  the 
sum  paid  for  pensions  remains  as  large  as  it  is 
at  the  present  time.  This  large  amount  of 
money  could  all  be  raised  without  any  protective 
tarifE  by  simply  levying  duties  on  the  tree-trade 
plan.  Suppose  our  duties  were  levied  on  tea  and 
coifee,  and  on  other  articles,  the  like  of  which 
are  not  produced  :yL  this  country.  Then  we  would 
obtain  the  revenue,  only  no  matter  how  high  such 
a  duty  might  be,  it  would  not  be  a  protective 
tariif,  as  there  would  be  no  productions  of  that 
kind  in  tlie   United  States  to  protect. 

2.  Again,  suppose  that  the  duties  were  le^'ied 
on  some  articles,  the  like  of  which  are  produced 
in  this  country,  but  that  such  duties  were  lowered 
30  per  cent,  and  levied  simply  for  the  purpose 
of  revenue,  and  not  with  the  view  of  protection. 
More  mooey  can  often  be  raised  with  a  low  tariff 
than  with  a  high  one.  A  tarilt  duty  levied  simply 
for  revenue  will  always  be  placed  at  such  a 
.point  as  will  increa;Se  the  amount  of  importa^ 
tions,  and  thus  increase  the  amount  of  revenue 
collected.  The  objection  to  a  duty  of  this  sort 
is  that  it  always  gives  the  foreign  manufacturers 
the  advantage  over  the  home  producers,  being 
levied  expressly  so  as  to  bring  in  all  the  foreign 
goods  possible  and  prevent  the  sale  of  oui  own 
home-made  goods  as  much  as  possible.  It  is  ai- 
rways the  aim  of  men  who  believe  in  "  a  tariif 
for  revenue  only"  to  fix  the  duty  levied  at  just 
that  point  which  will  encourage  the  foreign  mak- 
ing and  the  importation  of  goods  and  discoMrage 
fthe  manufacture  of  such  goods  in  the  United  States. 


The  men  who  believe  in  the  protective  system  aim 
to  reach  an  exactly  opposite  result.  They  always 
put  the  duty  so  high  as  to  give  our  own  manu- 
facturers an  advantage  in  our  markets  over  the 
foreign  manufacturers,  and,  in  that  way,  to  in- 
crease the  home  production,  and,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  decrease  the  importations.  Although  the 
rate  of  the  tariff  may  be  a  high  one,  the  importa- 
tions are  much  less,  and  the  duties  collected  are 
also  less,  than  if  a  lower  rate  of  duty  had  been 
levied  on  a  much  larger  quantity  of  goods. 

It  is  at  just  this  point  that  the  two  systems 
differ.  The  Free  Traders  only  take  into  account 
the  raising  of  revenue ;  the  Protectionists  look 
after  that,  also,  but  they  never  lose  sight  of 
stimulating  and  making  possible  the  home  produc- 
tion. The  former  plan  must  of  necessity  en- 
courage foreign  manufacturing,  and  discourage 
the  making  of  goo,ds  here  in  the  United  States. 
The  latter  plan  encourages  and  builds  up  home 
enterprises,  enables  our  manufacturers  to  pay 
higher  wages  for  work  and  still  be  prosperous 
and  never  stop  to  inquire  whether  the  men  who 
make  the  same  goods  in  the  Old  World  wUl  be 
benefited  or  not. 

Sometimes  more  revenue  will  be  collected  under 
the  one  system ;  sometimes  more  under  the  other ; 
each  case  being  governed  by  the  circumstances 
which  surround  It.  The  Free  Traders  claim  that 
nothing  should  be  made  in  any  country  which 
cannot  be  made  in  competition  with  the  rest  of 
the  world.  They  do  not  take  into  account  the 
conditions  as  to  wages,  labor  and  capital 
which  are  known  to  vary  so  much  among  dif- 
ferent nations.  Protectionists  claim  that  each 
nation  should  tal^e  cai-e  of  itself;  should  pro- 
duce the  greatest  possible  varieties  of  commodi- 
ties ;  should  manage  to  grow  and  make  every- 
thing that  can  be  economically  grown  or  made 
within  its  borders,  and  that,  where  conditions 
vary,  laws  should  be  so  framed  as  to  enable  the 
men  in  each  nation  to  control  the  markets  of  their 
own  country  as  against  the  producers  of  the  same 
goods  in  other  countries. 

It  will  be  readily  seen,  therefore,  that  the 
result  of  reducing  the  tariff  rates  30  per  cent 
might  be  to  increase  the  amount  of  duties  col- 
lected. It  would  ail  depend  on  the  manner  of 
Wuch  ,rveduoflLo|n.  The  Free  Tradejrs  are  con- 
stantly claiming  that  the  McKinley  bill  has 
raised  the  rate  of  duties;  yet  they  all  admit  that 
it  will  diminish  the  revenues  collected.  Why  ? 
Because,  first,  it  put  sugar  on  the  free  list,  whioh 
out  off  at  one  stroke  $55,000,000.  Secondly, 
because  whenever  the  dut.y  was  raised  it  was  to 
enable  our  people  to  make  more  of  those  arti- 
cles ourselves ;  and  no  duty  is  collected  on  the 
goods  wliioh  ■vve  make  ourselves.  A  Protectionist 
never  worries  about  the  loss  of  jeceipts  from  any 
particular  duty,  when  it  comes  from  having  been 
able  to  supply  some  market  with  Jiome-made  goods. 
That  is  precisely  what  he  started  out  to  do.  Why 
should  he  feel  badly  for  having  accomplished  just 
what  he  hoped  and  desired  to  accomplish  ? 

3.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  whether  free  coin- 
age would  ejid  in  an  expansion  or  in  a  contraction 
of  the  money  in  circulation  except  by  actual 
experiment.        Secretary    Windom    claimed    that 


Bia    rsSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAJ?. 


37 


there  would  be  less  iiiuiiey  in  circulation  after 
tlie  pafisa«e  of  such  a  law  than  now.  Tlie  advo- 
oaites  of  "  free  coinaKc"  claim  that  the  volume  ol 
circulating  mwliuni  would  be  lar^'cly  iucreased. 
What  soenis  to  me  to  lie  by  far  the  more  serious 
question  is  this :  "  Would  the  money  in  circula- 
tion then  be  as  good  as  the  money  we  now  have  ?'' 
We  can  now  convert  every  dollar  that  is  in  circu- 
lation among  the  people  of  the  L'nited  States  into 
a  dollar  wliich  is  good  everj^vhcre  on  tihe  face 
of  the  eartili.  Oould  that  be  done  after  free  coin- 
age of  silvei'  has  lx>en  made  legal,  with  the  same 
amount  of  silver  in  each  dollar  as  our  standard  dol- 
lar now  contains  ?  I  do  not  know.  I  am  afraid 
not.  I  csire  not  how  much  good  money  we  have 
In  circulation  in  tills  counfry.  The  more  the 
better.  I  would  very  much  dislike  to  have  our 
people  compelled  to  do  business  with  a  depreciated 
currency.  Men  who  work  for  wages,  men  who 
consume  products  (and  wo  all  do),  cannot  afford  to 
deal  in  depreciated  dollars.  All  commercial  na- 
tions are  compelled  in  the  end  to  settle  in  the 
money  of  the  world.  No  kind  of  juggling  can  es- 
cape or  avoid  this  final  result. 

4.  I  cannot  answer  .your  last  question,  because 
I  do  not  know.  I  am  not  in  the  secrets  of  the 
Alliance.  I  hardly  tliink  that  the  originators  of 
the  Alliance  had  in  view  in  the  beginning  the 
benefit  of  the  Democratic  party.  That  the  Demo- 
crats are  trying  to  capture  the  organization  now  is 
no  doubt  true.  If  they  succeed,  that  will  tie  the 
end  of  the  Alliance.  Tlie  Democratic  party  has 
always  been  ready  to  coalesce  with  any  and  every 
new  party,  liut  always  with  one  and  only  one  re- 
sult. After  the  swallowing  has  taken  place  the 
Democratic  party  "goes  right  on  for  ever,"  and 
the  new  party  is  never  again  heard  of  among  men. 
R.   G.    HOER. 


AEE  NATIONAL  BANK  NOTES  TAXABLE  ? 

A    MISSOURI    READER   THINKS   THEY    ARE   NOT— 
MR.    HORR'S    REPLY. 

To     the     Editor     ol     Tlie     Tribune. 

Sir:  In  your  Issue  of  May  6,  Mr.  Horr  In  answering 
the  inquiries  of  C.  M.  Woods,  says  that  National  bank 
notes,  nnlilte  t!ie  gree.nbaclis,  are  taxable  for  township, 
city,  county  and  State  pui-poses.  I  do  not  so  under- 
stand it  and  would  call  Mr.  Horr's  attention  to  Sections 
3,701  and  5,431    of  the  National  Bank  act. 

Bethany,  Mo.,  May  8,  1891.  A.  CUMMINGS. 

I  desire  to  thank  Mr.  Cummings  for  his  letter. 
At  the  time  T  made  the  statement  in  repl.v  to  Mr. 
Wood?  I  did  not  suppose  there  was  a  particle  of 
doubt  of  its  accuracy.  I  knew  that  for  years,  in 
the  business  world,  the  two  kinds  of  currency 
had  been  treated  as  I  there  stated.  He  can 
imagine  my  surprise  upon  receipt  of  his  letter. 
Upon  examination  of  the  sections  of  the  law  to 
which  he  refers  I  do  not  wonder  that  he  has  come 
to  the  conclusion  he  has.  Yet,  notwithstanding 
that  those  statutes,  upon  their  face,  seem  to 
bear 'out  his  statement,  still  the  conclusion  is  so 
clearly  against  what  I  know  to  have  been  the  pre- 
vious practice  of  business  men,  that  I  have  made 
a  more  careful  examination. 

The  present  Controller  of  the  Currency,  under 
date    of    May    14,    writes    me:     "In    regard    to 


whether  or  not  National  bank  notes  are  subject  to 
local  taxation,  I  desire  to  say  that  that  has  been  a 
moated  Question  for  some  years,  and  the  court  of 
last  resort  has  never  decided  the  question  so  far  as 
I  know."  In  a  recent  case,  in  the  District  Court 
of  Jackson  County.  Iowa,  at  the  April  term  of  this 
.year,  it  was  decided  in  the  case  of  Dunham  vs. 
the  city  of  Maquoketa,  that  National  bank  notes 
are  subject  to  local  taxation.  I  refer  to  the  May 
number  of  "The  Banking  Law  Journal,"  published 
at  No.  C3  Pine-st.,  New-York,  pages  277  and  28.'). 

Upon  examining  that  case.  I  And  the  court 
uses  the   following  language: 

National  bank  notes  are  not  in  any  Just  and  proper 
sense  obligations  of  the  United  States.  They  show 
upon  their  face  that  they  are  the  obligations  of  par- 
ticular banks,  to  wliom  they  have  been  delivered  and 
by  whom  they  have  been  put  in  circulation.  The 
Government  Is  bound  for  their  ultimate  redemption, 
but  this  redemption  Is  not  made  by  the  Government  ont 
of  Its  own  funds,  but  out  of  the  proceeds  of  sales  ot 
Ifovernnient  bonds  belonging  to  the  banks,  and  by  them 
deposited  with  the  Government  as  a  security  for  sncU 
redemption.  The  duty  ol  the  banhs  to  redeem  their 
own  circulation  rests  primarily  upon  them :  and  It  Is 
only  wlien  a  bank  falls  or  refuses  to  redeem  Its  own 
circulation  that  the  Governtnent  can  be  called  upon 
to  make  such  redemption,  and  this,  as  has  been  stated. 
It  does  out  ol  the  proceeds  ol  the  sales  of  the  bonds 
deposited  with  It  by  the  bank  to  secure  such  redemp- 
tion. The  law  ol  this  State  declares  bank  bills  to  be 
taxable.  The  circulation  notes  ol  National  banlts  are 
neither  more  nor  less  than  bank  bills.  There  Is 
notliing  in  the  laws  ol  tlUs  State  that  would  exempt 
Ihem  from  taxation  and  nothing  In  the  acts  ol  Con- 
gress properly  considered  that  would  prohibit  such 
taxation. 

Qpon  examination  of  the  report  of  a  former 
Controller  of  the  Currency,  made  by  Henry  W. 
Cannon  in  1885.  on  page  47,  it  wDl  be  seen  that 
this  question  had  at  that  time  frequently  been- 
asked  at  his  office.  He  states:  "The  question 
ol  the  liability  of  National  bank  currency  for  tax- 
ation arose  in  the  case  of  the  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners in  Montgomery  County  vs.  Elston  (.32  Ind. 
27)  and  it  was  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
that  State  that  National  bank  currency  is  not  ex- 
empt from  taxation  by  the  local  authorities  be- 
cause they  are  not  obligations  of  the  United 
States  in  any  proper  sense  of  that  expression.  In  a 
case,  however,  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
State  of  Mississippi,  Home  vs.  Green,  it  was  de- 
cided the  other  way.  In  1873  a  case  was  decided 
in  North  Carolina  in  which  the  court  held  that 
National  bant  notes  are  liable  for  taxation." 

Mr.  Cummings,  being  a  lawyer,  will  readily 
see  that  while  my  former  statement  is  not  entire- 
ly beyond  question,  still  that  up  to  date  the 
weight  of  the  decisions  favor  the  truth  of  my 
statement.  WUl  he  be  kind  enough  to  examine 
the  case  carefull.y  and  then  write  me  his  revised 
opinion  ?  Nothing  pleases  me  better  than  a  com- 
munication calling  in  question  any  statement 
which  I  make,  especially  when  accompanied  by 
a.  reference  which  seems  to  point  out  my  error 
as  clearly  as  did  the  statutes  referred  to  in  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Cummings.  I  think,  however,  that 
that  gentleman,  when  he  maikes  a  careful  exami- 
nation of  these  cases,  will  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  he  by  nO'  means  had  so  clear  a  case  against 


38 


BIG    ISSUES    OP    AN    OFF    YEXR. 


me  as  he  supposed,  wlien  he  penned  his  brief  note. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  I  thank  him  lor  calling  my  at- 
tention to  what  seemed  to  him  an  inaccurate  state- 
ment. What  we  should  all  aim  at  is  to  be  riffht, 
and  never  forget  that  we  are  all  Uable  to  make 
mistakes.  E.  G.  HOKK. 


WAGES     AND     THE     TARIFF. 


■  STEADY  WOB.K  AT  LOW  WAGES"  NOT  THE 
BEST,  BY  ANY  MEANS. 


WOUHD  THE  COUNTBT  HAVE  BEEN  BBTTEK  OFF 

IF    AMBHIOA    HAD    NOT    BEEN     SO     AT- 

TEAOTIVE  TO  IMMieRANTS? 

To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir :  lu  Mr.  Horr's  reply  to  the  remajJi  of  a,  resident 
of  Lj[nn,  Mass.,  that  "steady  work  at  low  wages  Is 
much  better  than  hlgli  wages  at  unsteady  employ- 
ment," he  mentions  the  fact  that  the  Important  factor 
In  the  labor  question  is  a  good  market  for  the  products 
of  labor,  and  that  the  cMef  disturbing  element  is  a 
glutted  marliet.  Now,  will  Mr.  Horr  answer  the 
following   questions? 

1.  Do  not  high  wages  produce  a  glut  in  any  cer- 
tain direction,  sooner  than  low  wages,  by  drawing  more 
labor  m  that  direction  1 

2.  Do  not  the  higb  wages  of  tills  country  Induce 
the  vast  labor  Immigration,  and  is  not  this  immigration 
the  chief  cause  of  a  glutted  labor  market  1 

3.  Do  not  these  Immigrants,  who  were  induced  to 
come  to  this  country  by  higli  wages,  now  constitute 
nearly  the  entire  mass  of  wage-earners  in  this  country, 
largely  to  the  exclusion  of  our  own  laborers ;  and  do 
they  not  form  the  main  body  of  labor  strikers,  now 
so  inimical  to  the  business  of  tills  country  1 

4.  Would  not  "  steady  work  at  low  wages"  have 
prevented  undue  Inimigratlon ,  avoided  overproduction 
and  gluts,  and  warded  oil  strikes,  and  would  there 
not  have  been  more  real  peace,  prosperity  and  happi- 
ness m  tills  country  than  at  present?  Sincerely 
yours,  T.  P.   DOUDLES. 

Leesburg,  Penn.,  June  15,  1891. 

In  answer  to  yoiu'  first  question,  I  will  saj' 
that  high  wa-ges  are  alwaj's  much  more  attractive 
to  people  who  work  than  low  wages;  that  more 
people  will  seek  work,  other  things  being  equal, 
when  it  pays  well  than  will  try  to  get  it  wliere 
the  pay  is  poor;  and  that  the  greater  the  number 
of  workmen  employed  in  any  given  land  of  work, 
the  more  goods  of  that  kind  will  be  proddced  ; 
but  whether  a  glut  will  follow  such  increased 
production  depends  entirely  upon  the  quantitj' 
*  of  suoli  goods  consumed.  It  often  happens  that 
,  the  increased  production  does  not  keep  pace  with 
the  increased  demand  or  consumption.  One  can 
never  tell  whether  a  glut  will  follow  increased 
production  without  first  knowing  how  many  of 
such  articles  will  be  used  or  consumed.  It  is 
very  easy  to  produce  a  glut  in  the  market  for 
any  commodity  wliich  people  stop  using  and  so 
stop  buying.  It  is  not  easy,  however,  to  produce 
a  glut  in  the  market  for  an  article  when  the  num- 
ber who  use  it  are  every  day  increasing  and 
where  the  quantity  used  by  each  individual  is 
.  also  daily  growing  larger,     lliese  all  seem  to  be 


self-evident  propositions,  which  need  no  argument 
to  enforce  their  adoption  as  being  true. 

2.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the 
high  wages  paid  for  labor  in  this  country  are  one 
of  the  main  inducements  whicli  lead  such  vast 
numbers  of  people  to  leave  the  Old  World  and  seek 
homes  in  the  United  States.  I  have  stated  such 
to  be  the  fact  hundreds  of  times  in  the  last  fifteen 
years,  and  mj'  Free-Trade  friends  have  denied 
such  is  the  case  just  as  many  times.  I  stUl  believe 
the  statement  to  be  true.  No  doubt  this  largti  im- 
migration would  increase  the  supply  of  working- 
men  in  this  country  and  would  lead  to  a  glut  in  the 
labor  market  unless  tliere  should  be  a  correspond- 
ing increase  in  new  industries  and  an  enlajge- 
ment  of  old  industries  sutlicient  to  absorb  all  the 
extra  help.  In  case  there  should  be  such  an  in- 
crease, immigration  would  produce  no  glut  in  our 
labor  markets.  For  example,  witli  all  this  immi- 
gration, there  is  no  glut  in  the  hired-girl  market ; 
nor  do  I  think  there  is  to-day  any  such  number 
of  unemployed  men  in  this  countrj'  in  any  trade  as 
some  people  are  constantly  claiming.  The  great 
bulk  of  our  people  can  find  worlr  at  fair  prices 
if  thejf  really  seek  for  something  to  do.  Still, 
the  tendency  of  this  constant  influx  of  laboring 
people  is  to  cheapen  the  price  of  labor.  It  seems 
to  me  beyond  dispute  that  such  a  result  must  fol- 
low such  a  cause.  Hence  I  answer  the  second 
question  in  the  affirmative. 

3.  "  Do"  not  these  Immigrants,  who  were  in- 
duced to  come  to  this  country  by  high  wages,  now 
constitute  nearly  the  entire  mass  of  wage-earners 
in  thiis  country,  to  the  exclusion  of  our  own  labor- 
ers ?"  Very  far  from  it.  There  are  a  large  num- 
ber of  such  immigrants,  and  of  course  the  places 
filled  by  them  are  not  occupied  Ijy  native-born 
Americans.  But  when  you  say  "  nearly  the  en- 
tire mass"  the  statement  is  very  wide  of  the  mark. 
If  we  could  get  an  actual  count  of  the  people  in 
the  United  States  who  work  lor  wages  it  would 
be  found  that  nowhere  nearly  one-half  of  tliem  are 
foreigu-born.  I  know  such  is  not  the  general  im- 
pression. The  statement  of  our  correspondent  has 
been  repeated  so  many  times  that  it  has  come  to 
be  believed  without  careful  examination. 

I  find  that  since  1820  there -have  been  only 
15,3.51,009  foreign-born  people  landed  in  the 
United  States.  True.  11.148,335  of  those  have 
come  since  1855;  that  is,  within  the  last  thirty- 
five  years.  Notwithstanding  that  laot.  I  doubt 
il  over  one  out  of  eight  of  the  people  now  in  this 
country  were  born  abroad.  Are  there  not  to-day 
more  colored  wage  workers  in  this  country  than 
the  entire  foreign  wage  laborers  combined  ?  Al- 
most every  one  of  these  colored  laborers  is  native 
born.  I  am  fully  convinced  that  for  every  man 
and  woman  in  this  country,  working  lor  wages, 
who  was  born  in  some  foreign  land,  there  are 
at  least  three  who  were  born  in  the  United  States. 
I  am  in  hopes  when  the  tables  of  the  census  are 
completed  that  we  can  learn  the  exact  facts  as  to 
this  question.  WhUe  these  foreign  immigrants 
are  by  no  means  as  numerous  as  our  correspondent 
seems  to  tliink,  still  there  are  enough  of  them 
greatly  to  increase  the  supply  of  laborers  ;  and  were 
if  not  for  the  vast  number  ol  new  works  which  are 
being    constantly    organized,    the    labor    market 


lUO     ISSl'ES    OF    AX    OFF    VFAR. 


39 


•would  Ions  ajjo  liave  liei'ii  ulutlcU.  As  It  Is  I 
hartUy  think  we  luive  u  supply  ul  workiuKuieii 
greatly  iii  excess  of  the  actual  needs  o£  the  coun- 
try. 

As  to  the  other  portioin  ot  the  third  nuestioii, 
my  observation  coincides  witli  the  susircstlon  of 
Mr.  Pondles.  I  tliliik  a  larse  ma.iorily  ot  the 
men  who  pngase  in  strikes  are  foreign  born.  At 
least,  such  has  ^)een  the  case  witli  the  strikes 
which  I  have  myself  witnessed.  It  may  be  that 
such  is  not  the  case  with  strikers  on  the  railroads 
or  In  the  cases  of  skilled  worlrmen.  However, 
these  are  mere  impressions  and  not  founded  on 
■suflicient  knowledae  of  facts  to  warrant  statins 
my  conclusion  with  much  emphasis. 

4.  Let  me  now  repeat  your  fourth  uuestion  as 
that  is  the  one  wliicli  demands  a  careful  answer. 
■"Would  not  'steady  work  at  low  wages'  have 
prevented  undue  immisratlon,  avoided  overpro- 
duction and  gluts  and  warded  ofTetrikes?  Would 
there  not  have  lieeii  more  real  peace,  prosperity 
and  happiness  In  this  country  than  at  present  ?'' 
I  do  not  see  how  cousfamt  work  by  the  people 
in  this  country  would  have  doterjied  people  Jrom 
comiuK  here ;  but  no  one  can  doubt  tliat  low 
•wages  would  have  operated  in  that  way. 
provided  they  were  low  enough.  Any  condition 
ol  affairs  which  would  have  made  it  ajipear  that 
the  people  wlio,  work  over  here  were  worse  off  ithan 
tlte  same  class  of  people  in  the  old  world  would 
liave  prevented  tlie  large  ma.ioiit.y  of  immisiants 
from  coming  to  this  country.  But  is  it  not  a 
little  strange  that  au.v  one  should  ask.  "  Would 
not  such  a  oonditioit  of  aft'iurs  have  been  Iietter 
lor  our  people  P" 

This  is  really  the  question :  "  Would  not  low 
wages,  constant  work,  poor  food,  bad  clothes, 
little  education  and  uncomfortable  houses  have 
rendered  the  attruction-s  of  this  country  so  small 
that  few  foreigners  would  have  come  to  seek 
homes  among  us?"  I  think  such  would  have  been 
the  case.  Then  think  of  .the  balance  of  the 
question :  "  Would  not  our  own  people  have  been 
more  peaceful,  more  prosperous  and  more  happy 
■with  low  wages  and  the  inevitable  accompaniments 
of  low  wages.?"  Cholera,  yellow  fever,  pest- 
ilence, famine  and  poisonous  snakes  would  tend 
to  keep  immigrants  away  from  a  country ;  but 
one  would  hai'dly  tliinli:  of  naming  those  things 
as  soiuoes  of  happiness  to  .those  living  in  the 
country.  The  fact  tliat  so  many  people  seek 
liomes  in  the  United  States  is  conclusive  proof 
that  they  expect  to  better  their  condition.  If 
low  wages  are  conducive  to  peace,  prosperity  and 
happiness,  why  do  not  all  these  people  stay  where 
wages  are  low  ? 

Peace,  prosperity  and  happiness .  are  a  grand 
Trinity.  It  is  diflicult  to  think  of  three  more  de- 
sirable blessings  of  a  material  nature  for  the 
liuman  race  to  seek.  That  continuous  work  and 
Tlittle  pay  will  insure  their  possession  is  to  me 
.a  novel  idea.  Is  it  possible  that  any  man  who 
is  working  for  wages  ever  conceived  such  a  notion  ? 
I  have,  duriii.4'  my  life-time,  labored  many  years 
for  hire,  beginning  work  on  a  farm  for  SlO  a 
month.  The  fact  that  my  work  was  very  con- 
tinuous, 'twelve  hours  and  over  each  day,  and  that 
my  wages  were  small  has  never  been  considered 


:iy  me  as  the  cause  of  any  great  ccsttisy  at  that 
time.  Since  tlieu  1  have  received  a  good  deal 
more  than  that  amount  for  each  day's  work  in  a 
year.  Tlie  moi'j  I  could  earn  the  better  I  liked 
it.  That  is  not  all.  I  have  never  si^n  the  time 
when  r  w.)uld  not  have  accepted  twice  as  much 
wages  as  I  received,  and  willingly  have  run  the 
risk  of  any  unhappincts  likely  to  follow. 

Let  me  state  some  propositions  that  seem  to 
me  to  be  much  nearer  the  truth;  low  wages 
are  better  than  none  at  all,  better  than  idleness, 
better  than  vagrancj',  betteT  than  want;  but  they 
are  not  so  good  as  high  wages.  The  more  a  man 
can  earn,  the  more  comforts  he  can  procure,  the 
more  happiness  be  shcnild  enjoy.  Constant  work 
at  low  wages  is  far  better  than  no  work  at  all; 
it  is  better  than  high  wages  for  a  short  time 
and  idleness  for  a  very  long  time,  but  it  is  not 
nearly  as  good  as  constant  work  at  good  wages. 

Do  not  forget  that  good  wages  for  our  entire 
l)eoi)le  is  what  increases  the  power  of  consuTnption 
and  prevents  gluts  in  our  markets  for  products, 
and  is  what  makes  the  markets  iov  the  64,000,000 
people  living  in  the  United  States  better  than 
the  markets  of  any  other  100,000,000  of  people 
on  the  face  of  the  earth.  E.  G.  HORE. 

AEE     THE      AMERICAN     SCREW     COMPANY 
GOING   TO    ENGLA^STD? 

When  ■will  our  opponents  take  to  telling  the 
truth  about  the  industries  of  the  United  States  ? 

A  good  friend  of  The  Tribune,  M.  L.  Imhoff, 
of  Houstonia,  Mo.,  writes  that  the  Democratic 
newspapers  of  St.  Louis  are  stating  that  the  Amer- 
ican Screw  Company,  of  Providence,  E.  I.,  one 
of  the  largest  companies  in  the  United  States,  are 
about  to  move  their  factory  to  England,  and  that 
they  are  forced  to  do  so  "  on  account  of  the  Me- 
Kinley  bill."  He  asks  The  Tribune  to  publish 
the  exact  facts  as  to  this  matter.  Very  well  I 
Here  they  are : 

The  American  Screw  Company  are  not  thinlting 
of  moving  the  principal  part  of  their  factory  to 
England  at  aU.  They  never  even  dreamed  of 
doing  so.  They  simply  contemplate  moving  a 
small  portion  of  it  which  has  stood  idle  for  some 
time.  Tliey  had  hoped  to  operate  that  portion 
on  foreign  material  for  their  foreign  trade.  The 
INlcKinley  bill  was  so  drawn  as  to  enable  them  to 
do  so,  not  so  as  to  prevent  them  from  doing  it. 
That  clause  in  the  bill  wliich  enables  them  to 
use  foreign  material  and  then  allows  them  a  re- 
bate of  the  duty  on  all  such  material  as  is  sent 
back  into  the  foreign  marlcet  in  the  form  of  manu- 
factured goods  was  intended  to  aid  all  American 
maiiufacturers,  this  Eh'ode  Island  concern  among 
them,  to  supply  all  the  foreign  trade  possible. 
It  was  intended  to  enable  them  to  obtain  free  raw 
material  for  all  goods  made  in  this  country  and 
shipped  abroad.  The  Democratic  journals  above 
referred  to  laiew  that  fact,  or  should  have  kno^wn 
it. 
•  If  the  facts  are  as  stated,  then  why  do  the 
Screw  Company  move  even  a  small  part  of  their 
factory  to  England  ?  The  Tribune  wiU  state  the 
reason.  It  is  because  the  managers  of  the  Amer- 
ican Screw  Companj'  know  full  weU  that  they 
can  obtain  their  labor  in  England  for  just  about 


40 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


one-Falf  the  money  they  are  compelled  to  pay  for 
the  same  work  in  this  country.  An  examination 
of  the  pay-roll  of  the  company  in  Ehode  Island 
and  then  of  the  pay  rolls  of  similar  concerns  in 
England  -will  fully  prove  the  truth  of  this  state- 
ment. Hence,  if  the  McKinley  bill  drives  these 
men  into  England  with  any  portion  of  their 
works,  it  is  because  that  biU  is  so  drawn  as  to 
keep  up  the  price  of  labor  in  the  United  States. 
If  that  is  what  these  free-trade  journals  mean  by 
the  Screw  Company  moving  the  idle  part  of  its 
machinery  to  England  "  on  account  of  the  McKin- 
ley bill,"  then  I  will  agree  with  them.  I  am  ready 
to  admit  that  the  result  of  all  protective  legisla- 
tion is  to  keep  good  wages  in  this  country.  That 
is  true,  not  merely  of  the  MoKinley  bill,  but  of 
all  bills  that  have  been  framed  on  the  protective 
plan.  The  main  object  of  all  such  legislation  is 
to  enable  the  American  Screw  Company  and  all 
other  manufacturers  in  the  United  'States  to  pay 
good  wages  to  the  men  who  do  their  work.  It 
is  owing  to  those  laws  that  tlie  laboring  men  in 
this  country,  of  all  kinds  and  classes,  are  better 
paid  for  their  labor  than  are  the  workingmen  of 
any  other  na,tion  on  the  face  of  the  globe. 

The  American  Screw  Company  have  a  branch 
factory  in  Canada,  and  have  had  for  some  time. 
They  contemplate  putting  up  another  branch 
across  the  Atlantic.  That,  however,  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  moving  their  great  Ehode 
Island  factory  over  there.  The  Khode  Island 
concern  will  stiU  continue  to  run  in  the  future  as 
it  has  in  the  past. 

Why  cannot  our  free-trade  friends  and  these 
Democratic  journals  publish  the  exact  facts  about 
such  matters  as  this  ?  It  is  easy  to  get  at  the 
truth  in  such  cases.  They  have  only  to  write 
the  American  Screw  Company  itself  for  correct 
Information,  and  the  secretary  of  that  company 
would  no  doubt  answer  them  as  promptly  and 
courteously  as  he  has  answered  The  Tribune. 
The  truth,  however,  is  not  what  these  journals 
seem  to  care  about  publishing.  Keep  a  good 
watch,  now,  and  see  if  they  do  not  continue  to 
circulate  the  old  original  lie.  They  will  do  that, 
too,  after  Tlie  Tribune  has  pointed  out  that  their 
statement  is  untrue  and  has  informed  them  that 
this  denial  is  made  upon  the  authority  of  the 
American  Screw  Company  itself.  We  took  it  for 
granted  if  that  great  concern  was  about  to  move 
to  England  that  its  own  officers  would  be  likely 
to  know  about  it.  It  is  always  better  in  seeking 
for  the  truth  about  such  a  matter  to  make  inquiries 
of  the  very  persons  who  know  about  it,  rather 
than  to  rely  on  those  who  do  not  know.  At 
least,  such  is  the  best  course  to  pursue  where  one 
is  really  seeking  the  truth.  Where  one  prefers 
not  to  know  the  facts,  then  a  draft  on  the  imagi- 
nation may  supply  a  newspaper  item ;  but  the 
danger  is  that  in  doing  so  you  will  only  add  an- 
other to  the  batch  of  falsehoods  which  go  so  far 
to  make  up  the  entire  assault  on  the  MoKinley 
bill.     Who  next?  E.  G.  HOEE. 


WHAT  WOEKEES  EEAIjEY  NEED. 
A    resident     of    Lynn,   Mass.,    writes    to    The 
Tribune  in  comment  upon  the  McKinley  bill     of 
which  he  does  not  wholly  approve)  and  makes  a  re- 


mark which  deserves  attention.  The  tone  of  his 
letter  is  courteous,  and  perhaps  it  will  be  as  well 
to  omit  his  name  fi'om  this  reply  to  what  he  says  ; 
but  his  remark  should  not  be  allowed  to  pass  un- 
noticed. He  makes  the  following  suggestion  aa 
the  solution  of  our  present  business  troubles  : 

"  What  the  business  men,  farmers  and  laboring- 
men  need  is  steady  emplojonent.  Now,  steady 
work  at  low  wages  is  much  better  than  high. 
wages  with  unsteady  employment." 

This  is  a  remark  often  made  nowadays  by  a> 
class  of  men  whom  I  meet  in  various  parts  of  the- 
countrj'.  I  liave  no-  acquaintance  with  our  corres- 
pondent, and  not  the  least  idea  as  to  his  occupation 
or  position  in  the  business  world.  His  words, 
are,  however,  identical  with  those  of  men  I  fre- 
quently meet,  who  think  that  constant  toil  at  low- 
prioes  is  the  desired  end  to  be  aimed  at  in  the  in- 
dustrial world.  My  observation  is,  that  such  re- 
marks are  made  only  by  men  who  are  willing 
to  get  gain  from  the  work  of  other  people  without, 
regard  to  the  comfort  of  those  who  do  the  work. 
I  never  heard  a  practical  farmer  make  such  a 
remark  for  two  reasons.  Farmers  have  work- 
enough  all  the  time :  they  can  always  find  enough 
to  do.  .Secondly,  because  they  know  that  lo-W" 
wages  mean  low  prices  for  what  thej'  grow.  Any- 
sensible  farmer  will  tell  you  that  he  prefers  to  pay 
good  wages  for  his  help  and  get  good  prices  for 
his  produce. 

I  never  heard  a  workingman  make  such  a. 
statement,  because  I  never  met  one  who  did  not 
think  that  good,  fair  wages  lor  his  work  was  an; 
element  which  entered  largely  into  his  own  happi- 
ness. I  never  yet  found  a  workingman  who. 
seemed  to  comprehend  the  idea  that  he  could 
profit  by  low  wages  if  they  would  ooly  let  him, 
work  longer  each  day  and  more  days  in  each  yeart 
There  may  be  a  sort  of  deep  significance  in  such  a 
statement  as  "  steady  work  at  low  wages"  but  it- 
is  so  deep  that  it  invariably  escapes  the  observa^ 
tion  of  the  average  laborer.  Somehow  such  a. 
statement  carries  no  real  conviction  to  his  mind. 
Again,  I  never  heard  such  a  remark  fro'nt 
any  manufacturer  who  takes  a  broad  view  of 
this  question  and  who  has  the  well-being  and 
happiness  of  his  work-people  at  heart.  No  man 
should  employ  other  men  who  will  not  guard 
their  weU-be'lng  as  sacredly  as  he  will  his  own. 
What  would  our  correspondent  think  of  a  work- 
ingman who  would  assert  that  what  the  world, 
needs  is  a  set  of  manufacturers  who  will  run 
their  mills  constantly  and  pay  high  wages  whether 
there  are  any  profits  or  not,  and  that  it  is  better 
for  manufacturers  to  run  constantly,  even  at  a 
loss,  than  to  run  on  high  prices  only  a  few  weeks, 
at  a  time.  That  position  is  as  tenable  as  the  one 
he  takes. 

Let  me  state  what,  it  seems  to  me,  business- 
men, farmers  and  laboring  men  need.  All  of  them, 
need  full  employment  at  fail-  wages.  Good,  fair,, 
prices  for  the  products  of  the  farm  make  farmers 
prosperous  'and  enable  them  to  pay  their  help 
good,  fair  wages.  Good,  fair  prices  for  the 
products  of  shop  and  factory  enable  business  men 
to  pay  good,  fair  wages  to  their  workmen  and 
should  leave  them  a  fair  return  for  their  own 
time  and  capital  invested,  and  they  should  always 


Bia    ISSUKS    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


41 


be  satisfied  with  a  fair  profit.  Steady  employ- 
meat  at  good  wages  gives  tlie  laboring  men  means 
with  fwhioli  to  purchase  the  products  of  the  farm, 
the  shop,  and  tlic  factory,  and  so  malce  steady 
omployment  possible.  In  short,  good  wages  for 
people  who  work  and  constant  cmploj'ment  at 
good  wages  is  the  key  to  the  whole  situation. 
It  malvcs  little  dilference  how  constantl.y  a  man 
labors  if  you  l^oep  his  wages  each  week  at  the 
starvation  point,  just  barely  enougli  to  keep  body 
and  .soul  togetlier  for  himself  and  his  family. 
He  ceases  to  be  a  general  consumer,  indeed  he 
gets  110  surplus  of  wages  with  whicli  to  buy 
ordinar.v  comforts.  Lack  of  consumption  is  as 
important  an  element  in  producing  a,  glut  in  the 
markets,  which  leads  to  low  prices,  as  is  over- 
production. 

Any  economic  system  based  on  the  statement 
of  our  correspondent  will  end.  of  necessity,  in 
the  degradation  of  labor  and  the  ruin  of  the  work- 
lifg  classes.  Any  system  tluit  produces  cheap 
men  and  cheap  women  must  lead  to  misery  and 
want.  If  we  can  so  manage  that  the  30,000,000 
of  working  people  in  the  United  States  shall  be 
constantly  employed  at  good  wages,  then  all  the 
other  couditioiiB  necessary  for  a  prosperous  peo- 
ple will  follow  as  a  matter  of  course.  Constant 
work  for  little  pay  may  be  the  best  we  can  do 
for  culprits  in  our  penitentiaries,  but  it  should 
hardly  be  hinted  at  as  the  thing  our  entire  peo- 
ple need.  R.  G.  HORR. 


TARIFF  STUDIES. 


EiCE  AND  SUGAR. 

THE     DIFFERENCE     BETWEEN    A    FREE     TRADE 
TARIFF  AND    A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF 
CLEARLY    DEFINED. 
To    the    Editor    of    The    Tribune. 

Su-:  I  am  a  reader  of  The  Weekly  Tribune,  and  am 
pleased  with  all  your  ideas  of  the  Tariff,  but  as  I  am 
almost  a  ricebird,  I  am  fretiuently  asked  by  Fi'ee 
Traders  hereabouts,  "Why  was  not  rice  put  on  the 
free  list  as  well  as  sugar?"  How  much  rice  Is  raised 
In  the  United  States  and  how  much  consumed  here  ?  I 
hope  to  see  a  reply  in  The  Weekly  Tribune.  Yours, 
etc.,  L.  HAELEY. 

WlUiston,  S.  C,  June  6,  1891. 

No  more  pertinent  question  could  be  asked  than 
the  one  suggested  bj^  this  correspondent.  The 
fact  that  such  questions,  are  constantly  being  re- 
ceived by  The  Tribune  gives  me  great  satisfaction 
in  the  work  I  am  trying  to  do. 

Some  Free  Ti-aders  in  South  Carolina,  it  seems, 
are  anxious  to  know  why  rice  should  not  have 
been  put  in  the  free  list,  the  same  as  sugar.  Tliere 
could  hardly  be  two  agricultural  articles  named 
that  better  illustrate  the  two  kinds  of  tariff  than 
do  rice  and  sugar.  The  dutj'  on  sugar  has  always 
been  simply  a  revenue  duty,  that  is,  a  free-trade 
duty,  and  hence  was  repealed  by  a  Congress  the 
majority  of  whom  believed  in  protective  duties. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  duty  on  rice  is  most  clearly 
a  protective  duty,  and  so  was  retained  by  the 
same  Congress.  The  duty  on  sugar  being  in  the 
nature  of  a  duty  for  revenue  only,  was  added  to 
the   cost   of   sugar,    and   had   to   be   paid   by   the 


ultimate  consumers  in  the  United  States,  for  th« 
simple  reason  that  the  'producers  of  sugar  in  thia 
country  have  failed  heretoloie  to  produce  enough 
so  as  to  sensibly  alfect  tlie  price.  It  has  been 
found  by  actual  e.\[jcriment  that  unless  we  pro- 
duce iu  the  United  States  at  least  one-third  of  any 
given  article  the  foreign  producers  control 
the  price,  and  duties  levied  on  such  articles  are 
simply  free-trade  duties,  and  are  invariably  added 
to  the  cost  of  such  articles  to  the  ultimate  con- 
sumers.  The  growers  of  sugar  in  this  country 
have  Ijeen  promising  every  year  that  if  the  duty 
on  sugar  should  Ije  left  in  force  they  would  in- 
crease the  production,  and  So  in  time  would  control 
the  price ;  while  from  year  to  year  this  promise 
has  been  made,  it  has  never  been  kept.  The  best 
that  they  ha\-e  ever  Ijeen  able  to  do  has  been  to 
raise  about  one  pound  in  ten  of  the  amount  actu- 
ally  consumed  in  the  United  States,  and  for  the 
last  two  years  they  have  not  raised  even  that 
amount. 

Sugar  Is  one  of  the  necessities  of  life.  It  is 
consumed  b.v  the  laboring  people  in  enormous  quan- 
tities. If  our  sugar  producers  could  increase  the 
product  in  this  country,  so  as  to  turnish  one-half  or 
even  one-third  of  the  sugar  consumed  here  then  a 
Protectionist  would  at  once  restore  the  duty  on. 
sugar,  but  so  long  as  our  sugar  producers  can  fur- 
nish only  one  pound  in  ten  or  twelve  pounds  of 
the  amount  consumed,  that  is  too  small  a  quantity 
perceptibly  to  affect  the  market  price.  It  would 
aflord  little  or  no  competition,  and  hence  a  tartflt 
put  upon  sugar  becomes  a  simple  tax  on  that  arti- 
cle, increases  Its  price  and  must  be  paid  l)j'  the 
people  of  this  country  who  finally  consume  the 
sugar.  It  was  on  account  of  this  admitted  fact 
that  sugar  was  placed  on  the  free  list.  Indeed^ 
It  is  much  cheaper  for  this  country  to  pa.v  a  bounty 
to  the  producers  in  such  a  case  and  so  buUd  up 
the  industry  by  that  direct  aid.  It  will  be  cheaper 
to  foster  this  industry  by  the  aid  of  a  bounty  un- 
til the  prod.uction  of  sugar  shall  be  increased  to  a. 
point  where  we  will  irow  and  market  at  least  one- 
third  of  the  sugar  we  consume  in  the  United  States- 
That  point  once  rcacheil,  then  the  bounty  should 
be  repealed  and  the  duti'  restored.  Let  me  repeat 
again,  the  reason  that  the  duty  on  sugar  was  re- 
pealed -was  because,  after  long  years  of  trial 
under  heavy  duties,  sugar-growers  failed  to  in- 
crease their  crop  so  as  to  control  our  markets,  and- 
hence  that  duty  became  simply  a  duty  for  revenue 
only.  It  was  in  no  sense  a  protective  duty.  It 
increased  the  cost  of  sugar  to  our  own  people  and 
was  collected  largely  from  the  poorer  classes  of 
our  citizens.  In  short,  it  was  a  simple  free-trade 
duty  and  should  have  been  repealed  long  ago. 
Then  "why  wonder  liiat  a  Congress  made  up  of  a 
majority  of  Protectionists  should  have  repealed 
this  duty  on  sugar?  The  wisdom  of  such  an  act 
is  already  evident.  Sugar  has  been  cheapened  for 
every  family  in  the  United  States,  precisely  as. 
Protectionists  predicted  tliat  it  would  be.  Strange 
as  it  may  seem,  our  Free-Trade  friends  voted 
against  this  clause  in  the  McKinley  bill  and  agiinst 
cheap  sugar  for  the  masses.  Now,  after  voting 
against  this  law,  they  "  right  about  face ''  au^' 
say :  "  Yes,  yes.  Free  sugar  is  a  good  tiling.  It 
is  aU  right,  but  wh.v  not  free  rice  also  ?" 


43 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


Eioe  and  sugar  are  both  agnoultural  products, 
and  are  Eiiiite'I  bj-  tlie  acreage  and  to  tlie  production 
oi  one  crop  in  each  year.  Such,  productions  are 
not  controlled  by  the  same  law  as  are  manufact- 
ured goods,  -where  plants  can  be  readily  multi- 
plied a.nd  where  continuous  running  of  large  fac- 
tories increases  the  supply  and  also  cheapens  the 
cost  of  production.  Hence,  it  does  not  so  surely 
loUow  that  prices  wiU  be  reduced  by  stimulating 
the  production  as  it  does  in  the  case  of  manu- 
factured products ;  but  sugar  and  rice  producers 
are  compelled  to  compete  with  low  wages,  with 
cheap  labor  abroad,  fully  as  much  as  are  any  in- 
dustries in  the  land.  The  testimoiiy  of  all  the 
sugar-growers  from  the  South  before  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  of  the  last  Congress  agreed 
that  theii  labor  in  this  country  cost  them  fully 
$1  per  day  for  each  man  employed.  The  rice- 
growers  all  said  that  the  same  price  is  being  paid 
for  their  help.  The  cost  of  labor  in  Cuba  and 
other  sugarcane  producing  countries  as  sworn  to 
by  those  same  gentlemen  is  only  20  cents  per  day 
for  each  laborer,  and  the  wages  paid  for  work  in 
the  rice  fields  of  Asia  is  only  from  6  to  14  cents 
per  day.  So  it  Ijecomes  evident  that  if  either  of 
these  industries  survives  in  the  United  States,  it 
can  only  do  so  by  some  method  which  will  com- 
pensate our  producers  for  these  larger  wages  which 
they  are  compelled  to  pay  to  the  people  who  do 
their  work. 

In  the  case  of  sugar,  it  is  oljeaper  for  our  people 
to  foster  that  industrj'  by  the  payment  of  a 
bounty,  and  will  be  cheaper  just  as  long  as  our 
productioiu  is  so  much  less  than  our  consumption 
of  sugar.  Why  not  then  put  rice  on  the  free  list ; 
aind  give  our  rice  producers  a  ibounty  the  same 
as  in  the  case  of  sugar  ?  That  is  the  question  the 
Free  Traders  seem  to  be  constantly  asking  our 
correspondent.  The  answer  is  not  difficult.  It  is 
«imply  because  the  rice  industrj-  is  a  protective 
industry  in  tills  country.  The  amount  of  rice 
produced  in  tne  L'nited  States  as  compared  with 
the  amount  imported  shows  conclusively  that  the 
rice  industry  is  on  an  entirely  different  basis 
from  that  of  sugar.  The  statements  of  a  few  facts 
ae  to  rice  production  will  show  what  I  mean. 

In  1865  all  the  rice  produced  in  the  United 
States  was  11,.t92,000  pounds;  in  1870  the  pro- 
duction had  grown  to  47,348,000  pounds;  in  1875 
the  production  had  reached  72,360,000  pounds; 
in  1880  it  had  advanced  to  111,766,000  pounds;  in 
1885  to  151,102,000  potmds ;  in  1890  our  rice- 
growers  furuished  for  the  co,nsumption  of  our  own 
people  164,200,000  pounds.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  1865  we  consumed  foreign  rice  to  the  amount 
of  52,408,760  pounds,  against  11,592,000  pounds 
produced  at  home.  In  1870  we  imported  27,000,- 
flOO  pounds  as  against  47,348,000  raised  m  the 
United  States.  In  1875  we  imported  47,062,414 
pounds,  but  our  own  producers  raised  that  year 
72,360,800  pounds.  In  1880  we  imported  57,- 
919,542  pounds  of  foreign  rice,  but  we  raised  from 
our  own  plantations  that  year  117,766,000  pounds. 
In  1885  we  imported  72,446,550  pounds,  and  our 
home  production  for  that  year  was  151,102,920 
pounds.  In  1890  we  imported  151,000,000  pounds, 
tolit  we  raised  in  this  country  that  year  164,000,- 
•000  pounds. 


I  find  upon  careful  computation  that  during 
the  last  ten  years  we  have  consumed  in  the  United 
States,  in  round  numbers,  1,050,000,000  pounds 
of  foreign  rice,  and  we  have  grown  in  this  coun- 
try 1,280,000,000  pounds.  Thus  you  see,  while 
the  increase  in  consumption  is  something  enormous, 
still,  much  more  than  one-half  of  the  entire 
amount  consumed  is  gi'own  upon  our  own  planta- 
tions. When  the  sugar-growers  of  this  country 
will  make  such  a  comparative  showing  as  that, 
Protectionists  will  proceed  to  drop  the  bounty 
and  restore  the  duty  on  sugar.  It  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  duty  on  rice,  which  has  enabled 
our  rice-growers  to  cultivate  their  fields,  has  so 
increased  the  supply  of  the  world  that  rice  is 
very  much  cheaper  all  over  the  world  than  it 
would  lie  but  for  this  enormous  production  in  the 
United  States.  Hence  it  is  that  the  consumers 
of  rice  in  this  country  do  not  by  any  means  pay 
the  entire  amount  of  the  duty  levied ;  indeed,  a 
larg-e  paTt  of  that  duty  comes  from  foreign  pro- 
ducers, who  are  compelled  to  pay  it  in  order  to 
reach  our  markets. 

The  rice  of  the  United  States  is  grown  mostly 
in  two  States— Louisiana  and  South  Carolina.  It 
is  very  expensive  to  prepare  a  rice  field,  costing 
from  §150  to  5200  per  acre.  Mr.  Screven,  of 
Savannah,  Ga.,«a  very  intelligent  witness,  said  that 
slave  labor  formerly  cost  the  Southern  planter 
about  twenty  cents  per  day  for  each  workman, 
and  that  with  that  cheap  labor  they  could  defy 
the  world  in  the  production  of  cheap  rice.  The 
same  witnesses  said  that,  being  now  compelled  to 
pay  ?1  per  day  for  labor,  without  protection  no 
planter  could  raise  rice  a  single  year.  Will  our 
Fiee-Trade  friends  who  are  constantly  de- 
claring that  labor  is  in  no  way  protected 
b.v  our  duties  on  foreign  products  please  put  this 
statement  of  a  Southern  Democrat  into  their 
pijjes  and  smoke  it?  This  same  witness  stated 
that  the  duty  on  rice  had  not  increased  its  cost  to 
the  consumers.  If  the  dilty  was  removed  and  no 
bounty  were  given  it  would  at  once  destroy  the  rice 
industry  in  this  country.  Very  likely  lor  a  little 
while  rice  would  be  cheaper  than  it  now  is,  but 
our  rice  fields  once  abandoned,  w'e  would  then 
be  at  the  mercy  of  foreign  producers.  With  an 
immense  decrease  in  supply  and  an  increase  in  de- 
mand, this  would,  of  course,  result  in  the  price 
going  up  to  such  a  point  as  foreign  producers 
might  demand.  Besides,,  without  either  a  protec- 
tive duty  or  a  bounty,  our  own  rice  planters  would 
never  open  a  single  acre  to  rice  culture.  Should 
the  price  go  up  until  one  of  our  planters  might 
conclude  to  try  it  agT >  .  the  foreign  prod;icer, 
ever  on  the  watch,  would  put  down  the  price 
and  ruin  the  business  of  the  South  Carolina  or 
Louisiana  rice-growers,  and  then,  when  he  had 
forced  them  to  abandon  their  fields,  up  would  go 
the  price  for  our  consumers.  Just  that  state  of 
affairs  has  existed  many  times  in  the  United 
States  as  to  very  many  industries.  In  view  of 
all  these  facts,  would  it  not  be  simply  idiotic  to 
nut  rice  on  the  free  list?  What  true  American 
would  think  of  doin;;  it  ? 

But  some  one  says  Why  not  put  rice  now 
on  the  free  list  and  give  our  producers  a 
bounty  ?     Because,  in  the  case  of  rice,  the  bounty 


inO    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


43 


would  cost  our  people  several  times  as  mucli  as 
we  would  save.  In  the  case  of  sugar  the  bounty 
will  cost  about  $7,000,000  per  year,  but  we  will 
save  ei!;tht  times  that  ainou7it.  01  course  tliis 
sum  is  not  saved  to  the  General  Government,  but 
to  the  laboring  classes,  who  consume  the  sugar 
and  are  compelled  to  pay  the  bulk  of  such  a 
free-trade  tarill.  If  a  bounty  were  placed  on 
rice,  it  would  compel  the  Government  to  pay  an 
immense  sum  in  bounty  and  then  would  saw  very 
little,  if  anything,  to  the  ultimate  consumers,  the 
working  people  who  eat  rice.  Riec-growers  under 
protection  ha,ve  constantly  increased  their  pro- 
duction, and  so  have  held  control  of  our  market. 
The  duty  is  a  protective  one.  in  the  case  of  rice, 
and  should  be  preserved,  while  in  the  case  of 
sugar  there  is  not  enough  produced  in  tjiis  country 
to  make  it  a  protective  industry;  yet.  in  order 
to  preserve  the  industry,  sugar  was  placed  upon 
the  free  list  and  a  bounty  is  oft'ered  to  sugar  pro- 
ducers. Wheu  sugar-growers  shall  do  what  the 
rice-growers  have  already  done,  when  they  shall 
have  increased  their  product  from  one-tenth  of 
our  consumption  to  over  one-half  of  it,  then  the 
duty  on  sugar  should  be  restored  and  the  bounty 
should  be  repealed.  In  both  these  cases  our  legis- 
lation is  intended  to  foster  and  build  up  both  these 
industries.  Neither  of  them  could  live  two  years 
without  laws  favoring  them.  Tlie  free-trade  doc- 
trine is  that  all  these  laws  shoul  i  lie  repealed.  Our 
free-trade  IrJends  say  in  so  many  words :  11  you 
cannot  raise  rice  in  South  Caiolina  and  Louisiana; 
if  you  cannot  raise  sugar  in  the  South  and  pay 
gl  per  day  for  labor,  and  compete  with  tlie  slave 
labor  of  Cuba  in  tlie  production  of  sugar,  and  the 
14-cent  per  day  labor  of  Asia  in  the  production  ol 
rice,  then  stop  growing  rice  and  sugar  in  the 
United  States.  They  tell  us  to  go  to  doing  somc- 
tliing  else  until  our  working  people  can  learu 
to  live  on  14  cents  per  day.  It  is.  useless  to  tell 
them  that  rice  lands  will  produce  nothing  else; 
*hat  the  sugar  industry  is  an  important  one  for 
the  planters  of  the  South.  It  seems  also  useless 
to  tell  them  that  labor  should  be  protected  in 
this  couDtry ;  tliat  to  reduce  our  worlcing  people 
to  Chinese  wages  is  to  degrade  them ;  that  such 
a  policy  will  end  in  ruin  to  this  country.  They 
have  a  theory  that  each  nation  should  attempt 
only  what  it  can  do  clieapest,  and  they  leave  out 
of  the  problem  entirely  the  great  lesson  taught  by 
long  experience,  that  diversified  industry  is  what 
makes  a  nation  strong  and  rich.  They  forget 
that  constant  employment  at  good  wages.  Is  what 
makes  a  people  happy  and  prosperous.  They  over- 
look the  fact  that  men  who  work  can  afford  to 
pay  a  fair  price  for  what  they  consume,  if.  at  the 
same  time  their  own  product  brings  a  fair  price, 
so  that  they  get  for  each  day's  work  good  wages. 
I  mow  leave  it  to  any  candid  Free-Trader  whether 
my  explanation  is  not  complete.  I  hope  and  be- 
lieve that  the  bount.v  on  sugar  will  in  a  few  years 
change  that  into  a  protective  industry.  Rice  is 
most  clearly  such  an  industry  now.  My  hope  is 
that  rice  will  stay  where  it  is  and  that  sugar  will 
get  there  at  an  early  date.  The  general  activity  al- 
ready seen  In  various  parts  of  the  United  States 
to  establish  the  growth  of  sugar  beets  gives  me 
«reat  c.onfidp'ic*'  iu  the  belief  that  sugar  in  the 


United  States  In  a  very  few  years  will  be  largely 
grown  by  our  own  people. 

Even  the  Mills  bill  did  not  attack  rice  and  sugar. 
If  that  measure,  wliich  aimed  such  a  deadly  blow 
at  so  many  of  the  indusliics  of  the  United  States, 
omitted  an  assault  upon  rice  and  sugar,  why  should 
our  free-trade  friends  worry  themselves  over  these 
Va'o  industries  ?  1  hope  at  least  that  my  answer  to 
this  correspondent  will  prove  satisfactory  to  the 
"  Riccbirds''  of  South  Carolina,  even  though  some 
of  the  suirar-producers  may  not  enjoy  my  state- 
ment that  a  bounty  is  Ijetter  for  the  people  of  this 
country  on  sugar  than  a  protective  duty. 

R.  G.  HORR. 


"IS   THE  TAEUFF  A   TAX?" 

A     QUESTIO>f    WHICH     WILL     BE     ANSWERED    IF 
THE  QUESTIONER  WILL  DEFINE  HIS  TERMS. 

A  list  of  questions  propounded  to  The  Tribune 
by  George  Huston,  ol  Limeton,  Va.,  are  referred 
to  me  for  answers.  The  first  question  reads  as 
follows:  "Is  the  tarill'  a  tax?  II  so,  who  pays 
it  ?     If  it  is  not,  than  what  is  it  ?  " 

Before  answering  the  Ust  of  questions  of  this 
correspondent,  I  am  compelled  to  ask  him  for  an 
explanation  so  as  to  enable  me  to  get  started  on 
the  very  first  question.  What  kind  of  a  tariff  do 
you  mean?  Some  tariff  duties  may  be  called  a 
"tax";  some  may  not  be;  some  are  paid  by  the 
consumers  and  some  are  not.  Again,  what  is  yoin 
definition  of  a  "  tax"'  ?  The  word  is  used  in  many 
different  senses  by  different  persons.  I  have  three 
times  listened  to  very  long  and  exhaustive  debates 
iu  Congress  on  the  tariff',  and  much  time  was  de- 
voted to  this  very  question  as  to  "  whether  a 
tariff'  is  a  tax. "  At  the  close  of  each  debate  I 
was  impressed  with  what  secured  to  me  to  be  the 
fact  that  a  large  amount  of  time  and  talk  had 
been  expended  simply  because  the  disputants  did 
not  agree  in  their  definition  of  terms. 

Let  me  illustrate.  I  have  here  on  my  table  a 
letter  from  a  correspondent  which  reads  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Are  not  silver  certificates  money  ?  In  one 
of  !Mr.  Horr's  articles  it  seems  to  me  he  intimates 
that  they  are  not  mone.v,  though  he  does  not  say 
exactly  that.  If  they  are  not  money,  what  are 
they  ?  "  Is  it  not  evident  that  the  answer  to  that 
question  depends  entirely  upon  the  definition  of 
the  word  "  money "  ?  If  you  will  examine  the 
different  authors  you  will  find  that  the  word 
monej'  has  been  defined  in  more  than  a  dozen  dif- 
ferent ways ;  and  my  correspondent  may  nave 
still  another  definition  as  to  just  what  money  is. 
How  is  it  possible  to  answer  his  question  unless  I 
know  what  he  means  by  the  term  he  uses  ?  Ac- 
cording to  one  definition,  silver  certificates  could 
by  no  manner  of  means  be  called  money ;  accord- 
ing  to  another  they  would  be  money,  and  so  would 
bank  checks  and  Clearing  House  certificates,  and 
even  promissory  notes.  If  they  are  not  money 
what,  are  they  ?  Why,  of  course,  they  are  silver 
certificates. 

"  If  a  tariff  is  not  a  tax,  what  is  it  ? "  says  Mr. 
Huston.  It  is  a  tariff,  a  duty  levied  on  imports, 
aU  the  same  whether  it  is  a  tax  or  not.  Some 
duties  are  a  "tax,"  according  to  one  delinition  of 


44 


BIG-    ISStJES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


tie  word ;  some  are  not.  Some  taxes  are  burdens ; 
some  are  blessings.  A  free-trade  tariff  is  one 
thing ;  a  protective  tariff  is  quite  another.  A  free- 
trade  tariff  may  be  always  paid  by  the  consumer ; 
a  protective  tariff  may  seldom  be,  and  when  a 
portion  of  it  is  may  still  be  better  for  the  con- 
sumer, on  account  of  other  advantages.  Hence 
my  question  :  What  kind  of  a  tariff  do  you  mean  ? 
What  is  your  definition  of  a  tax  ?  Let  us  try  and 
get  started  risrht  and  uuderstand  each,  other. 

E.  G.  HOEE. 


IS    AMEEICAN    TIN    PLATE    COATED    WITH 

AJMEEICAN  TIN? 
To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir :  Will  you  please  answer  through  the  columns 
■of  The  Tribune  whether  there  is  now  any  tin  plate 
being  made  in  the  Uiiited  States  which  is  washed  with 
tin  mined  in  this  country.  The  Freei  Traders  say  there 
are  no  tin  mines  in  the  United  States  :  tlierefore  no  use 
of  the  tariff  on  that  metal.  Also  state  wliere  the  tin 
mines  in  the  United  States  are  located,  and  what 
estimate  is  placed  on  t'lelr  value  by  those  who  are 
competent  to  judge.  W.  S.  VAN  EEMER. 

Eondout,  N.  Y.,  May   8,  1891. 

There  is  to-day  no  tin  plate  coated  with  tin 
which  is  mined  in  tliis  country.  Tin  plate  is  now 
being  manufactured,  however,  in  several  establish- 
ments in  the  United  States ;  and  many  more  fac- 
tories are  being  now  erected.  The  steel  and  iron 
plates  (which  compose  96  per  cent  of  all  ordinary 
tin  plate)  are  being  already  made  in  this  country : 
but  the  tin  for  coating  them  is  imported  from  the 
old  world. 

You  state  that  the  Free  Traders  say  there  is  no 
tin  mined  in  the  United  States ;  therefore,  there  is 
no  use  of  the  tariff  on  that  metal.  If  they  stated 
that,  we  will  give  them  credit  for  telling  the 
truth  once.  The  fact  is,  there  is  no  tariff  duty  on 
tin  metal  at  present.  Tin  is  on  the  free  list.  The 
duty  about  which  Free  Traders  complain  is  on  the 
tin  plate.  Our  manufaetures  can  buy  the  raw 
metal  to-day  just  as  cheaply  as  can  tlie  tin-plate 
makers  of  So'Uth  Wales.  And  even  the  increased 
duty  on  tin  plate  will  not  take  effect  until  July 
1  next.  Time  has  been  given  by  the  McKinley 
BUI  for  erecting  the  new  machinery  for  producing 
till  plate  before  the  tariff  will  take  effect. 

While  American  tin  is  not  yet  being  used  to 
coat  tin  plates,  there  are,  nevertheless,  at  the 
present  time,  two  large  mines  producing  Ameri- 
can tin  in  the  United  States.  One  is  in  South 
Dakota,  a  few  miles  from  Eapid  City,  in  the  Black 
Hills ;  the  other  is  in  California :  both  -  of  these 
mines  are  now  being-  worjvcd  by  between  two  and 
three  hundred  men.  I  have  before  me  on  my 
table  a  little  anvil,  just  sent  me  from  the  Dakota 
mine,  manufactured  from  pure  American  tin.  It 
is  marked,  "  American  Tin,  from  Cow  Boy  Mine, 
Hill  City,  South  Dakota ;  compUments  Harney 
Peak  C/onsolidated  Tin  Company."  My  informa- 
tion recently  received  from  both  tliis  mine  and 
the  one  in  California  is  that  the  veins  of  tin  ore 
are  well  defined,  that  the  ore  is  rich,  that  milling 
plants  are  being  erected,  and  that  in  Ijoth  these 
mines  the  operators  expect  to  be  producing,  in  a 
few  months,  large  quantities  of  pure  metallic  tin. 

It  is  a  little  singular  huvv  persistently  the  Free- 


Traders  continue  to  sneer  at  the  tin  industry  of 
the  United  States.  It  might  be  discouraging,  were 
it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  sneer  is  a  very  old 
one.  I  heard  precisely  the  same  jeering  remarks» 
in  the  same  sarcastic  tone  when  we  first  attempted 
to  make  steel  rails  in  the  United  States ;  also 
when  the  plate-glass  industry  was  established^ 
and  when  our  crocker.v  factories  were  opened. 
Indeed,  I  do  not  now  recollect  a  single  instance- 
of  a  successful  industry  in  the  United  States  that 
has  not  been  built  up  in  the  face  of  free-trade- 
sneers.  If  we  can  judge  the  future  by  the  past, 
the  bulk  of  our  tin  plate  "will  yet  be  made  here 
in  the  United  States,  and  a  full  supply  of  tin  willi 
be  taken  from  our  own  mines,  in  spite  of  all 
these  persistent  scoffers.  It  would  please  me  very 
much  to  have  such  an  industry  built  up  in  the- 
United  States.  I  hope  it  will  be  surels'  done,  even 
though  it  should  result  in  breaking  the  hearts  of 
our  free-trade  friends.  Is  it  not  a  little  strange 
that  they  should  take  such  constant  delight  in 
their  persistent  effort  to  belittle  every  attempt 
to  produce  any  new  thing  in  this  country  ?  I 
would  not  train  with  a  crowd  which  seems  to- 
consider  it  a  duty  to  discourage  every  attempt  to 
do  anything  in  the  United  States.  These  men. 
who  are  always  sneering  at  what  is  American,  and 
who  do  nothing  but  -"our  cold  water  on  every 
American  enterprise,  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  them- 
selves. I  prefer  to  encourage  every  attempt  to 
build  up  a  new  industry  in  my  own  country,  and 
shall  always  rejoice  over  the  success  of  men  who 
have  the  pluck  and  energy  to  start  new  enter- 
prises. E.  G.  H. 


A^IIY   SUGAE  DOES  NOT  GO  DOWN  THEEE 
AND   A   HALF    CENTS. 

A     NEW     IliLUST-RATIOSr     OF     THE     DIFFERENCE 

BETWEEN     A    FREE    TRADE     AND     A 

PROTECTIVE    TARIFF 

To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir:  The  tariff  on.  sugar  before  the  cliaiige  of  tlie- 
law  was  3  1-2  cents  a  pound,  and  it  is  now  1-2  a  cent 
per  pound.  Can  you  tell  me  why  the  retail  price  has- 
not  Oianged  more !  It  was  not  above  6  3-4  cents  a 
pound  at  any  time  in  March.  Instead  of  going  down: 
three  cents,  it  has  not  changed  two^  cents.  Are  not 
the  Sugar  Trusts  getting  in  their  fine  work  ?  Please 
answer  and  obUge.  J.  OSCAR  TBRREL. 

Honesdale,  Penn.,  April  30,  1891. 

As  a  rule,  duties  levied  on  articles  which  we- 
do  not  produce  are  added  to  the  cost  of  the  arti- 
cle to  the  American  consumer.  We  do  7iot  pro- 
duce sugar  in  this  country  in  quantities  sufficient 
to  enable  our  production  to  enter  as  much  of  a. 
factor  into  the  competition  of  the  world  :  and,  of 
course,  any  duty  levied  on  such  an  article  would 
increase  its  price.  But  there  are  so  many  oir^- 
cumstances  which  enter  into  fl.\ing  the  price  of 
any  commodity  that  the  mere  amount  of  duty 
paid  is  not  of  itself  a  statement  of  enough  facts- 
to  determine  the  reason  for  any  given  price. 

One  might  suppose  that  a  duty  of  3  l-'2  cents, 
a  pound  on  granulated  sugar  w-ould  add  just 
that  amount  to  the  cost  of  the  article,  and, 
that  when  the  duty  was  decreast'd,  to  1-2  cent  a. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF  AN    OFF    YEAR.                                                     45 

pound    such  sugar  wduIiI  at  once  fall  in  price  3  Ix;  the  practical  result,  then  sugar  will  soon  be  as 

<»nts  a  pound.     But  the  duty  on  the  lower  grades  cheap  in  the   United  States  as  it  can  possibly  be 

of  sugar  out  of  which  granulated  sugar  is  made  and  pay  fair  wages  to  American  workmen.     That 

only   averaged   about   2    cents  a  pound,   and  the  is  as  cheap  as  any  good   citizen  of  this  country 

balance  of  the  3  1-2  cents,  that  is,  1  1-2  cents  a  ought  to  desire  it  to  be.     That  will  be  about  2 

pound,  was  the  duty  on  the  manufactured  article,  cents  a  pound.     If  it  shall  be  much  less  than  that 

That  duty  of   1  1-2   cents  a   pound   has  not  been  then  it  will   be   owing  to  some  outside  influence 

added  U>  the  cost  of  the  article.     Owing  to  the  which  I  do   not  now  understand.     If  it  shall  be 

lirisk   competition   among   our  own  refiners,   they  much  more  than  that   then  I  shall  be  surprised, 

have  kept   the  price  down  for  the  manufactured  If  the  theories  of  Free-Trade  writers  are  true 

article,  and  have  not  added  the  duty  on  refined  then  the  decline  should  be  3  cents  a  pound.     I  do 

ervgar  to   the  price.     They   have  added   onlj'   the  not  believe  their  theories,  and  so  do  not  look  for 

2  cents  a  pound  that  was  i)aid  on  the  lower  grades  any  such  reduction  in  the  price  of  sugar.     Time 

of  sugar.     Hence  there  was  no  rea.son  to  suppose  will  demonstrate  which  of  us  ijj  right.     K.  G.  H. 

that  refined  sugars  would  fall  in  price  more  than  •_ . 

about  2    cents  a  pound.     That  2   cents  duty  on  XHE  TiVEIFF  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN, 

the    low    grades    of    sugar   was,    in    its    essential  Ti.pr^  =^„,„o  +„!,„• 

^         ^     ,      ■,   ^          1    ■               I    4.1  ^  "^'^^  seems  to  be  an  impression  amons  manv 

character,   a  free   trade   duty   and   increased   the  _.„„,„  j,,  ti,„  i-„;t„,i  v;^  »      \.i    .  ,"  ""'""o  mduy 

^   ^       ,                            1      i   »i    *           ,    *      Ti,-  people  m  the  United  States   that  Great  Brita m  is 

cost  to   the   consumer   about  that  amount.     The  n,,r„|,.  f,.„„  t,..,,,         ^-           .■     ,  "*  ,  "•  "'^*'^'"  "» 

,   ^     ^  a  purely  iree-tiade  nation.     Such  is  bv  no  mean"; 

e.\tra  1  1-2  cents  a  pound  was  a  protective  dut.v  to  ^Vip  mc^      Ti,„  .v^n..    ;       ».i         ,,    ,        ""'"'-'' "^ 

,■            J                  It  .„ii„-i  +„  the  case,     f  he  lollowing  table  wiU  show  the  exact 

aid  our  refiners  of  sugar  and   was  not   added  to  amminf  nf  n,ni,«.,w.,,ii„„.„  i  ■     ^i     t-  ^      "^^="=^0,00 

^,          .            ^,  amount  01  money  collected  in  the  Lnitea  Kinadom 

the  price  to  the  consumer.  hv  t-nHiv  rintio.:     r„,.  n  „     „             j-        ,,           „ 

__^                    ,.,..,,,-          .                  n  „   o  •^               duties    for  the  years  ending  March  31. 

That   sugar   did   not  fall   in   price  even  the   2  jgjjy  ^^^^  isyu- 

cents  a  pound    which  was  formerly  paid  on  the  Year  ending       Year  endhig 

low  grades  is  readily  accounted  lor.     nie  families  /,„i:„,^,                                March  01,          Mar^h  31, 

^^  .A.1  ULies.                                       fdOO                      IHfiQ 

and  hotels  who  buy  in  large  quantities,  the  grocery     Tea  9i2y,i4o",o0.>       $22  Ss'^'sSO 

men,    both   retail   and    wholesale,   had    lieen   pre-     S***^"??  ■■■,■-•; 92]'4HiJ         "'6(>4!l60 

paring  for  the  change.     All  these  persons  tnanaged  Wine  ■...  .'^.f!.-.::;:::;::::;;;  'eiot-lols         ^6:5?oiOT 

to  have  as  little  on  hand  as  possible  .4.prU  1,  when     Tobacco  and  snuff 4-l,'293,'905         45,'309'920 

..11                  ...                ^-            ,                         ...1  Currants,  raisins  and  dried 

the    law    went    into    operation.     As    soon    as    the  fi-uits  ..!...    ..                      2  897  145            o(— 4,-- 

change    took    place    all    these    persons    began    to     Othu-r  ai  tides '899^000  "'gisVss 

call  for  their  new  supply,  and  that  enormous  de-      Miscellaneou.s  re.eipts 159,085  144:340 

mand  which   could  not  be  met  in  a  day  held  up  Total  899,855,955     35102,277,815 

the  price  of  refined  and  high-grade  sugars.  A  glance  at  this  table  wiU  show  that  England 

In  such  a  large  country  as  ours    the  means  of  collected  in  1SS9  over  §102.000,000,  and  in  1890 

toansportation  may  be  wonderful,  yet  it  takes  time  nearly  §100,000,000  by  duties  levied  on  foreign 

to  reach  all  our  people   with  any  article.     It  is  imports.        The  table   furthei    shows  that  nearly 

clear   that   time   enough   has   not  yet  elapsed   to  570,000,000  was  collected  from  the  two  items  of 

see  what  sugar  will  finally  bring  in  this  country,  tea  and   tobacco.        It  will  be  further  seen  that 

If   our    Free-Trade    friends    are    correct   in    their  these  duties  were    aU  of  them    levied  upon  arti- 

theories,  then  refined  sugar  should  soon  Ije  sold  cles  the  Hke  of  which  were  not  produced  in  Great 

for  3  cents  a  pound  less  than  it  has  been  selling  Britain.     That  is  the  Free-Trade  plan  of  levying 

for  under  the   3   1-2  cents  duty.     I  do  not  look  duties.     England  goes  stLU  further,  and  makes  it 

for  any  such  reduction.     Sugar,  it  seems  to  me,  a  misdemeanor  under  her  laws  for  lier  citizens  to 

should    be    about   2    cents   a   pound   cheaper.     If  raise  tobacco  at  all.     My  objections  to  that  kind 

the  1-2  cent  per  pound  shall  prove  to  lie  sufiicient  of  a  duty  are  twofold : 

to   enable    our   manufacturers   to    keep   their   re-  First,  a  duty  levied  on  articles  that  cannot  be 

fineries  in  operatio.n,  then  sugar  Avill  decline  about  produced  in  the  coujitry  which  levies  it  is  always 

the  amount  of  the  former  duty  on  Tow-grade  sugars  added  to  the   price   of  the  article,   and  must    of 

and  only  about  that  amount.     If  the  manufactur-  course,  be  paid  by  the  consumers  of  such  articles, 

ers  of  our  country  should  be  driven  out  of  the  The  le^'J•ing  of  such  a  duty  cannot  stimulate  the 

business,  then  in  a  little  while  we  will  pay  more  production  of  similar  articles  in  the  country  levy- 

for  our  sugar  than  if  we  had  kept  them  running,  ing  the   duty,   because   no  such  articles  are  pro- 

I  hope  they  wiU  be  able  to  prosper  on  the  1-2  duced  in  that  country.     It  builds  up  no  industry 

cent  a  pound   now  levied  on  the  imported  article.  produces  no  competition,  and  can  in  no  possible 

I  do  not  know  whether  there  is  any  Sugar  Trust  manner   lead   to    the   cheapening   of  the   articles 

which  can  affect  prices  now  or  not.     I  do  know  Such  a  duty  may  alwaj's  be  called  a  tax  on  the 

that  if  our  manufacturers  of  refined  sugar  were  consumers. 

driven  out   of  existence    we   would   be  in  much  Secondly,  the  customs  received  from  such  im- 

greater    danger   from   foreign    combinations   than  ports  must  be  paid  almost  entirely   by  the  poor 

we  are  now.     The  larger  the  number  of  operators  and  laboring  classes  of  the  eountiy.     For  example 

the  more  difficult  it  is  to  form  combinations.     It  take  the  t\vo  items  of  tea  and  tobacco      The  peo- 

was  intended  to  place  the  duty  on  refined  sugars  pie  •  of  the   United   Kingdom   paid   on  those   two 

at  a  point  where  it  would  give  our   refiners  of  articles  each  year  over  $67,000,000.     'Who  paid 

sugar  full  protection  against  the  cheaper  labor  of  that  large  sum  ?       Most  clearly  the  people   who 

the  Old  World-and  so  also  as  to  give  them  con-  drank  the   tea  and   who   consumed   the   tobacco 

trol  of  our  home  markets.     It  this  shaU  prove  to  Both  of  those  articles  are  in  common  use  amonc^ 


46 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


the  laboring  people  of  Great  Britain.  No  doubt  a 
workingman  consumes  nearly  the  same  amount  of 
each,  of  those  articles  each  clay  that  a  rich  man 
does.  Now,  as  there  are  600  working-people  in 
Great  Britain  to  every  one  who  can  be  called  rich, 
about  six  hundred  times  as  much  of  that  money 
was  collected  from  the  working-people  as  came 
from  the  rich  people  of  that  country. 

Under  the  protective  system  we  levy  duties  on 
articles  that  can  be  produced  in  the  United  States. 
In  doing  so,  we  foster  and  build  up  our  own 
industries ;  the  duties  levied  in  such  a  case  are 
largely  paid  by  foreign  people  seeking  to  get  pos- 
session of  our  markets. 

However,  I  publish  thia  table  simply  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  the  readers  of  The  Weekly 
Tribune  that  Great  Britain  is  in  no  sense  free  from 
custom  houses  and  custom  collections.  Whenever, 
after  tliis,  any  Free  Trader  states  that  what  he 
wants  is  free  trade  in  the  United  States  such  as 
England  has,  point  out  this  table  to  him,  and  then 
ask  him  if  what  he  means  is  not  really,  that  he 
would  have  tliis  country  levy  its  duties  on  the 
English  free-trade  plan.  That  plan  necessarily 
collects  its  revenues  mostly  from  the  poorer 
classes,  and  we  do  not  propose  to  have  it  adopted 
in  the  United  States.  We  very  much  prefer 
that  the  tariff  should  be  so  levied  that  it  vrtU 
give  good  wages  to  our  working  people  and  com- 
pel the  rich  people  of  this  country  and  the  im- 
porters of  foreign  goods,  to  supplj''  the  funds  for 
running  the  Nation.  E.  G.  H. 


WHO  IS  ENTITLED  TO  THE  SCJGAE  BOUNTY? 

A    PRESSING    NEED    NOW    FOR    THE    INVENTION 

OF    LOW    PRICED     AND     SATISPACTOBT 

PLANTS   FOR   MAKING   SUGAR. 

To    the    Editor    of    The    Tribune. 

Sir :  I  am  a  poor  farmer  who  raised  alsout  one  ton  of 
sugar.  I  want  to  Imow  if  I  can  gcT  a  tiounty  for  tliat 
small  amount.  I  had  it  lioiled  up  in  a  vacuum  pan.  It 
is  of  a  sort  of  yellowisli  color.  I  believe  that  It  is  of 
16  Dutch  staudiird.  AETHUK  POCHE. 

Ponchatoula,  La. 

By  a  glance  at  the  sugar  schedule  our  corre- 
spondent will  see  that  no  bounty  is  paid  on  any 
sugar  produced  before  July  1,  1891.  After  that 
date  and  until  July  1,  1905,  any  person  producing 
500  pounds  or  more  can  get  a  bounty  of  two 
cents  a  pound  on  aU  such  sugar,  if  it  shall  test 
not  less  than  ninety  degrees  by  the  polariscope. 
If  it  shall  test  less  than  ninety  degrees  and  not 
less  than  eighty  degrees  by  the  polariscope,  the 
bounty  is  fixed  at  one  and  three-fourths  cents 
per  pound. 

In  order  to  obtain  the  bounty  the  producer  must 
file  with  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Eevenue  a 
notice  "  of  the  place  of  production,  with  a  general 
description  of  the  machinery  and  methods  to  be 
employed  by  him ;  an  estimate  of  the  amount  of 
sugar  proposed  to  be  produced  in  the  current  or 
next  ensuing  year,  including  the  number  of  maple 
trees  to  be  tapped,  and  a,n  application  for  a  license 
so  to  produce.  He  must  also  file  a  bond,  with 
sureties,  to  be  approved  by  the  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Eevenue,  conditioned  that  he  will  faith- 


fully observe  all  rules  and  repulations  that  shaft 
be  prescribed  for  such  manufacture  and  production 
of  sugar.  No  bounty  is  to  be  paid  on  any  sugar,, 
except  such  as  shall  be  produced  from  sorghum, 
beets  or  sugar  cane  grown  .witliin  the  United 
States,  or  from  maple  sap  produced  within  the 
United  States,  at  the  place  and  with  tlie  machinery 
and  by  the  methods  described  in  the  application ; 
but  said  license  shall  not  extend  beyond  one  year 
from  the  date  thereof." 

All  these  precautions  were  deemed  necessar.v  to 
guard  against  the  fraudulent  claiming  of  bounties 
on  sugars  imported  into  this  country.  It  is  clear 
that  the  framers  of  this  law  believed  that  the 
great  bulk  of  sugar  produced  from  lieets 
or  sugar  cane  would  be  manufactured 
from  the  beets  and  cane  by  men  who  would  put 
up  machinery  for  that  purpose,  and  in  that  way 
that  the  farmers  who  raise  only  100,  200,  30(> 
or  400  pounds  of  sugar  could  get  this  bounty  by 
selling  their  beets  or  cane  to  these  manufacturers. 
As  a  rule  the  men  who  raise  sugar-cane  produce 
enough  to  pay  them  for  taking  out  a  license  when 
they  make  up  their  own  cane  into  sugar. 

The  Internal  Eevenue  Department  will  no  doubt 
furnish  blanks  for  all  persons  desiring  them,  with 
full  instructions  just  how  to  proceed  so  as  to 
secure  this  bounty.  Address  "  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Eevenue,  Washington,  D.  C." 

The  object  of  this  bounty  is  to  stimulate  the 
production  of  sugar  in  this  country.  We  have  of 
late  not  been  able  to  produce  over  one  pound  in 
te.n  of  the  sugar  which  our  people  con,3ume.  That 
ought  not  to  be  the  case.  It  is  believed  that  the 
raising  of  sugar  beets  will  lead  up  to  the 
solution  of  this  problem  in  the  Unif-'d  States. 
Two  or  three  very  large  enterprises  of 
this  kind  have  alread.y  be«n  established, 
notably  one  in  Nebraska  and  one  in  CaUforuia 
These  are  mammoth  concerns,  aud  are  makiiig 
an  immense  outlay  of  capital.  The  more  such 
institutions  the  better ;  and  yet  I  am  incliued 
to  think  that  the  real  solution  of  this  problem 
must  come  from  the  establishment  of  an  immense 
number  of  smaller  concerns.  If  some  one  can  in- 
vent a  process,  so  that  for  a  few  thousand  dollars 
a  plant  can  be  erected  which  will  utilize  the  sugar 
beets  grown  in  each  township  or  nei.ghborhood 
(as  eider  mills  now  utilize  and  make  up  the  "  cider 
apples"  of  each  neighborhood),  the  production  of 
our  own  sugar  would  at  once  be  assured. 

People  are  fast  learning  how  to  grow  the  sugar 
beet  and  improve  its  sugar-bearing  qualities.  In 
1829  the  sugar  beet  yielded  only  2  1-2  per  cent  of 
sugar  to  the  weight  of  the  beet.  Ten  .years  ago 
a  rate  of  9  per  cent  had  been  reached.  In  1889 
the  German  crop  is  reported  to  have  yielded  14 
per  cent.  Every  addition  of  one  per  cent  means 
an  increase  of  20  pounds  of  .sugar  per  ton.  and 
about  300  pounds  increase  to  the  acre.  In 
Nebraska  an  analysis  of  315  samples  gave  a 
trifle  over  16  per  cent  as  the  average.  Different 
fields  vary  in  the  amount  of  sugar  to  the  ton  of 
beets;  sections  of  the  same  ueld  a'.so  vary.  It  is 
safe  to  say  .that  a  fair  average  in  this  country 
will  be  fourteen  pounds  of  sugar  from  each  100 
pounds  of  beets.  The  quality  of  the  sugar  teet 
has  been  constantly  improved  ''y  careful  propaga- 


BItt    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


47 


tion,  and  selcotiug  the  very  Ijest  for  seeil-raisinc 
purposes.  It  requires  al)out  tweilty  pounds  of  seed 
to  plant  an  acre  of  suf;ar  beets.  Tliey  sliould  be 
planted  about  eiKhteen  inches  apart,  and  l:ept 
clean  from  weeds.  If  well  tilled  an  acre  will 
produce  from  fourteen  to  thirty  tons  of  Sugar  bect.s, 
depending  on  tlio  kind  of  soil  and  its  richness. 

The  plant  lor  manufac'iurinp;  sugar  at  Grand 
Island,  Neb.,  cost  $500,000.  When  malting  sugar 
it  runs  night  and  day,  and  employs  100  men  on 
each  sluft,  or  200  each  day.  It  uses  up  250  tons 
of  beets  a  day.  When  the  industry  is  fully  estab- 
lished the  factory  can  Ije  run  aljout  five  months 
in  a  year. 

In  California  they  report  a  .yield  of  about  fifteen 
tons  per  acre,  and  a  net  profit  varying  from 
$35  to  $45  per  acre,  over  and  above  all  labor. 
Where  the  land  will  yield  trw<'nty-five  tons  to  the 
acre  of  course  the  extra  expense  is  small  and  the 
net  profits  are  enormously  increased. 

Tlio  very  large  beets  are  not  the  best  sugar 
producers.  It  is  found  that  when  the  weight  rises 
above  about  three  pounds  to  the  l>eet  the  tiualit.y 
becomes  rapidly  poorer.  But  tlie  s-ize  can  be 
leadUy  graiiuated  when  thinning  by  leaving  the 
plants  nearer  togeHuT. 

I  am  largely  iiulcljted  for  the  foregoing  facts 
to  Mr.  David  U'llrine,  chemist  of  Colorado.  I  have 
given  them  here  because,  go  where  I  will,  the 
people  are  constantl.y  asldug  me  about  the  details 
of  this  new  industrj'. 

The  inquiry  is  also  becoming  very  general  as  to 
how  small  and  how  cheap  a  plant  can  be  run  with 
profit.  I  am  utterly  unable  to  answer  this  last 
Question.  It  is  a  very  important  one,  and  The 
Tribune  now  invites  any  person  knowing  the 
facts  to  send  a  .statement  to  tliis  paper.  We  will 
gladl.v  give  publicity  to  any  information  wltich 
will  bear  upon  this  ([uestion,  not  as  an  advertise- 
ment, but  as  a  matter  of  news  which  will  l)e  of 
great  interest  to  many  readers.  Let  me  repeat 
the  question  :  How  small  and  how  cheap  a  plant  can 
be  obtained,  which  will  manutaclure  sugar  from 
beets  so  as  to  insure  innfit  fur  the  manufacturer 
and  a  fair  price  per  ton  for  the  beets  ? 

I  will  add  that  at  large  establishments  the 
quality  of  each  farmer's  crop  is  ascertained  by 
what  seems  to  be  a  fair  process,  and  then  he  is 
paid  per  ton  according  to  the  amount  of  sugar 
in  his  special  crop. 

If  there  is  as  yet  in  existence  no  plant  that  v.ill 
meet  this  coming  demand  for  neighborhood  use, 
will  some  Ingenious  Yankee  proceed  to  suppl.y  the 
needs  of  the  country  in  that  regard  ?  The  man 
who  shall  succeed  in  making  such  a  plant  need 
be  troubled  no  longer  after  his  invention  with 
"mortgages  on  his  farm.''  E.  G-.  H. 


CAN    EICH    MILL    OWNERS    COMBINE    AJSTD 
EOB  THE  PEOPLE  ? 

A  PERTINENT  QUESTIOX  SQUARELy  ANSWERED 
To    the    Eaitor    of    The    Trlbnno. 

Sir :  If,  imder  free  trade.  EngUslx  manufacturers 
could  obtain  a  monopoly  of  our  niarliets  and  then  raise 
prices  to  suit  themselves,  why  under  protection  cannot 
the  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  combine  and  ad- 
vance their  prices  to  the  consumer  by  the  amomit  of 
duty  collected  on  their  products! 

Tice,  II  EDG.A.R  SAJVIPSON. 

Let  me  say,  first,  that  no  duty  is  collected  on  the 
products  of  American  factories,  shops  and  mills. 
Many  people  think  that  American  products  pay  a 
duty.  It  may  be  that  Mr.  Sampson  thinks  so. 
But  that  is  not  the  case.  The  only  goods  that  pay 
a  duty  are  those  Imported  from  foreign  lands. 
Mr.    Sampson's   question   amounts   to   this :     Can 


American  manufacturers  combine  and  advance 
prices,  and  themselves  virtually  collect  from  the 
people  and  put  into  their  own  pockets  a.  sum  of 
money  equal  to  what  the  Government  collects, 
in  the  form  of  duty  on  foreign  goods  ? 

If  we  should  not  produce  a  particular  article 
in  the  L'uited  States,  then  the  foreigi;  producers 
of  it  would'  have  no  competition  from  manufac- 
turers in  the  United  States.  They  could  then 
manipvilatc  prices  to  suit  themselves.  The,\-  would 
not  do  this  by  getting  a  "monopoly"  of  our  mar- 
kets. There  are  no  "monopolies"  in  this  country, 
except  those  granted  to  people  who  secure  a  patent 
for  an  invention  or  new  disco^•ery.  Our  Oovem- 
ment  never  grants  to  any  one  the  exclusive 
right  to  manufacture  or  sell  any  article,  except  in 
cases  of  patent  rights.  The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  prohibits  the  granting  of  all  mo- 
nopolies in  this  country.  Every  one  is  free  to 
manufacture  and  sell  (limited  only  by  patent 
rights),  if  he  has  the  capital.  Combinations  are, 
however,  found  wliioh  sometimes  contioi  prices 
almost  as  effectually  as  if  monopolies  \i'ere  granted. 
These  combinations  are  more  readily  formed  where 
the  number  of  producers  are  small,  and  where 
the  producers  all  live  in  foreign  lands  aud  are 
beyond  the  reach  of  our  laws  and  public  opinion. 
In  no  country  in  the  world  have  moi-e  ut  these 
combinations  been  found,  fi-om  time  to  time,  tha.a 
in  England.  American  consumers  have  sufl'ered 
from  them  repeatedly.  They  are  not  under  con- 
trol of  our  laws,  and  are  beyond  the  rea;h  of  our 
public  opinion.  But  can  manufacturers  in  thi» 
country  combine  and.p'U  up  prices  to  the  amount 
of  the  duty?  A  conihination  in  America  to  raise 
prices  here  is  difficult.  Comhiiiations  are  fre- 
quently foi-med  or  attemited,  but  few  of  them 
ever  succeed,  and  the  combinations  which  are 
lasting  are,  as  a  rule,  those  which  do  not  attempt 
to  raise  prices.  An  illustration  of  this  is  the 
Standard  Oil  Company.  V.'e  often  speak  of  that 
company  as  an  immense  "  monopoly,  ~  and  yet 
it  is  nothing  of  the  kind.  It  is  however,  a  mam- 
moth combination  which  wields  wonderful  power. 
It  almost  absolutely  controls  the  oil  markets  of 
the  world,  yet  it  does  not  put  up  the  price  of 
oil  in  this  country.  It  may  fix  the  price  of  oil 
in  the  Old  World  with  great  ease,  but  it  has,  not 
ventured  to  make  oUs  high  in  the  United  States. 
It  has,  by  great  skill  in  its  management,  cheapened 
the  cost  of  oil  to  the  American  public  greatly.  It 
can  pioduoe  oil  more  cheaply  than  an.y  other  concern 
in  the  world.  Its  membei-s  have  amassed  im- 
mense fortunes,  yet  those  fortunes  are  small 
compared  with  the  money  saved  to  the  consumers 
of  oil  in  the  United  States  by  cheapening  that  ar- 
ticle for  home  consumption.  That  corporation 
has  been  governed  by  men  who  had  the  sense  to 
see  that  the  company  would  be  tolerated  in  this 
country  only  so  long  as  it  benefited  our  people  by 
producing  oil  cheaper  than  that  produced  by  any 
concern  which  made  it  in  small  quantities  and 
which  did  not  have  the  piping  and  other  facUities 
for  saving  freights  and  refining  at  the  lowest  pos- 
sible cost.  It  is  clear  that  our  people  have  been 
large  gainers  by  the  fact  that  that  company  is  lo- 
cated here,  under  our  own  laws,  where  our  pabUc 
opinion  can  reach  its  stockholders.     No  doubt  they 


48 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


have  furnished  oil  to  our  people  mucli  olisaper 
than  to  any  other  Xolks  in  the  world.  That  shows 
the  advantage  of  having  an  article  produced  by 
parties  living  in  the  United  States. 

The  moment  you  open  up  the  manufacture  of  any 
article  in  the  United  States  the  total  supply  of 
lihat  article  is  increased,  and  the  price  tends  to  de- 
•crease  both  liere  and  in  the  Old  World,  where  they 
are  at  once  cut  off  from  a  portion  of  their  markets. 
But,  you  ask,  why  cannot  our  own  manufacturers 
combine  and  put  up  the  price  to  the  consumer  and 
pocket  the  amount  of  the  duty  imposed  on  the  for- 
eign articles  ?  The  answer  is  (1)  because  the  duty 
is  nearly  all  offset  by  the  higher  wages  paid  in 
this  country :  and  (2)  the  moment  the  manufactur- 
ers advance  the  price  foreign  goods  will  come  in 
and  break  down  the  market  again.  You  must  not 
forget  that,  when  we  rely  on  foreign  manufactur- 
ers, we  nearly  always  pay  more  for  goods  than 
they  are  really  worth.  We  aie  paying  to-day 
more  lor  tin  plate  than  we  should  pay.  The  for- 
eign manufacturer,  together  with  his  agent,  the 
importer,  controls  the  price.  We  are  at  their  mer- 
cy. Our  people  can  make  tin  plate  cheaper  than  it 
is  selling  for  in  this  country  to-day,  and  pay  our 
higher  price  for  labor;  and  the  reason  they  ask 
protection  on  that  article  is  that  when  they  drive 
the  prices  down  the  cheap  labor  of  England  can- 
not step  in  and  put  the  price  stUl  lower, 
so  low  that  our  manufacturers  could  not 
live  and  pay  our  better  wages.  It  they 
should  put  the  prices  up  as  you  suggest 
the  foreignei-s  would  at  once  oojne  in  and  under- 
sell them  and  their  market  would  be  gone. 

Do  you  not  see  that  a  combination  to  put  up 
prices  could  not  be  formed  so  as  to  be  effective, 
except  by  including  producers  in  both  the  Old 
World  and  the  New,  which  is  not  an  easy  thing 
to  do  ?  It  was  tried  with  reference  to  salt  last 
year,  but  failed ;  it  could  not  be  managed.  Will 
our  correspondent  learn  the  present  price  of  tin 


the  article  to  our  consumers.  This  is  always  don* 
by  improvements  in  methods  of  production,  by  thb 
greater  intelUgence  and  skill  of  our  workmen  and 
by  the  increased  competition  caused  by  the  new 
industry,  none  of  which  can  exist  until  the  in- 
dustry has  been  establislied  and  built  up  by  a 
protective  tariff.  When  thus  built  up,  I  know  of 
no  instance  where  cheapening  of  the  price  of  the 
goo,ds  has  not  taken  place.  It  has  been  the  case 
with  cotton  goods,  woollen  goods,  silk  goods, 
hardware,  crockery,  glass,  the  products  of  steel 
and  iron,  paper  of  all  kinds,  salt,  chemicals  of 
every  description,  etc.,  etc.  If  there  is  danger 
of  such  combinations,  why  have  they  not  been 
formed  in  these  cases  ?  E.  G.  H. 


ARE  TAXES  EVER  A  BLESSING 

POINTED  QUESTIONS  BY  A  CLEAE-HEADED 
MINNESOTA   MAN. 


MR.    HO-KR    TRIES    TO    GIVE    THEM    A    FAIR    AND 
SQUARE    ANSWER. 

To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir :  I  am  a  worklngman  and  belong  to  a  labor 
organization,  and  am  reading  Mr.  Horr's  ardcles  mth 
great  interest.  I  think  he  is  right  on  the  tariff.  A 
large  number  of  tlie  laboring  men  about  here  beUeve 
in  the  doctriue  of  protecdon.  We  think  it  secures  us 
good  wages. 

Just  at  tills  time  the  members  of  our  society  are  dis- 
cussing other  questions.  In  one  of  Mr.  Horr's  articles 
lie  states  tliat  taxes  may  be  blessings  and  not  burdens. 
We  plain  people  consider  taxes  burdensome  and  often 
irksome  There  is  a  strong  leeUng  among  us  also  that 
the  Grovernment  should  o\vu  the  telegraph  lines,  the 
railroads,  and  should  furnish  all  the  money  needed  by 
the  people,  without  any  banks  having  anything  to  do 
with  the  issue  of  the  currency.  Mr.  Horr  has  several 
times  iu  his  articles  spoken  of  certain  tilings  as  being 
plate  and  mark  it  down,  and  then  keep  a  careful  outside  the  legitimate  work  ol  the  Government.  I  am 
watch  of  that  article,  and  see  if  we  do  not  cheapen     requested  to  ask  liim  a  lew  questions  and  hope  he  will 


it  by  making  it  in  this  country  ?  The  Free  Trader 
is  constantly  asserting  that  all  the  manufacturer 
in  this  country  desires  from  a  tariff  is  the  power 
to  put  up  the  price  of  his  goods.  That  is  false. 
No  tariff  was  ever  yet  le^ried  when  the  object  was 
not  a  double  one— first,  to  protect  the  labor  of  this 
country  and  enable  us  to  pay  good  wages ;  and 
secondly,  to  cheapen  the  price  of  the  article  for 
the  consumers.  Both  objects  have  so  far  always 
been  reached.  I  would  like  to  agree  upon  a  test 
case  where  we  can  soon  arrive  at  the  facts.  Mr. 
Norton,  of  Chicago,  states  squarely  that  he  be- 
lieves in  thirty-six  months  tin  plates,  which  now 
cost  $5  75  a  box,  wiU  be  made  and  sold  lor  $4  a 
box  here  in  the  United  States.  If  that  shall  take 
place,  what  would  be  the  use  of  theorizing  any 
longer  ? 

Do  not  woiTy  about  the  price  of  articles  being 
put  up  on  accoiunt  of  making  them  in  this  country 
aided  by  protection  laws,  after  the  protection  is 
fairly  in  operation.  There  is  no  such  case  on 
record  to-day.  Not  one..  So  far  the  price  has 
been  reduced.  Do  not  forget  my  statement.  One 
object  always  sought  by  a  protective  tariff  on 
manufactured  articles    is  to  cheapen  the  cost  of 


see  fit  to  answer  them  as  early  as  possible,  because,  I 
assure  you,  they  are  aU  questions  which  are  behig  asked 
by  the  entu'e  working  people  ol  the  West. 

First.  What  does  he  mean  when  he  says  a  "  tax  may 
be  a  blessing"  ? 

Second.  Are  not  all  taxes,  ol  necessity,  burdens ! 
Third.   Why   should  not   the  Government  own  and. 
operate  the  railroads  and  telegraph  lines ! 

Fourth.  Why  should  not  the  Government  issue  all 
the  paper  money  needed  by  the  people  and  so  save  the 
interest  now  paid  to  the  National  banks  on  the  Govern- 
ment bonds  ? 

I  shall'  watch  the  Weekly  Tribune  lor  a  reply. 

OSCAE  WILDEE. 
Minneapolis,  Minn.,  AprU  25,  1891. 
These  questions  of  our  correspondent  are  a  good 
Illustration  of  the  fact  that  it  is  very  much  easier 
to  ask  questions  than  it  is  to  answer  them.  A 
full  answer  to  his  lour  brief  questions  would  re- 
quire a  book.  I  will,  however,  give  my  answers 
to  them  in  as  brief  a  manner  as  is  possible  in  a 
newspaper  article,  and  shall  hope  that  brevity 
will  not  cause  my  reply  to  be  obscure. 

In  reply  to  the  first  two  questions,  I  will  say 
that  taxation  is  an  outgrowth  of  civilization. 
Among  savages  there  are  no  assessors,  no  tax  col- 


BIG    ISSQES    OF    AN    OFF    YE.VR. 


4& 


lectors.  IIow  does  it  come  iu  a  republican  form 
of  guvcnimeiit.  that  sucli  a  thing  as  a  tax  i.s 
known  ?  We  must  not  forget  that  in  this  country 
the  entire  people  are  the  government.  When  our 
forefathers  landed  on  the  American  continent 
the.v  fo;ind  tlic  country  occupied  by  wild  savages. 
They  brought  with  tliem  tlic  customs  of  civiliza- 
tion. 

The  very  lirst  thing  the.\'  did  was  necessarily  to 
buiUl  houses  for  shelter.  Each  family  naturally 
built  its  own  domicile,  one  aiding  the  other  as  ne- 
cessities required,  on  some  agreed  basis  of  labor. 

\VORKS   OF    A   PUBLIC   NATURE. 

Probaltly  the  first  work  of  a  public  nature  was 
the  building  af  some  kind  of  a  fortification  to  pro- 
tect the  community  from  the  encroachments  of  the 
savages.  No  doubt  almost  every  able-bo<lied 
man  iu  the  colony  gave  his  full  share  of  time  to 
that  work. 

The  next  public  work  that  followed  was  un- 
doubtedly the  building  of  a  road.  At  first  that 
was  proliably  done  by  the  voluntary  work  of  each 
individual.  In  a  little  while,  as  the  colony  in- 
creascil  in  size  and  wealth  began  to  Ix!  accumu- 
lated, the  needs  of  a  passable  roadway  became 
more  imiJerative.  People  began  to  l^e  engrossed 
in  their  private  affairs  and  to  be  absent  when  the 
needed  work  of  repairing  the  road  was  required. 
Now  no  one  will  claim  that  the  building  of  the 
street  iu  the  outset  was  a  burden,  any  more  than 
the  building  of  the  house  or  tlie  tilling 
of  the  soil.  It  will  Ije  readily  admitted 
b.y  ever.y  one  that  the  building  of  a  pass- 
able roadway  in  the  community  was  an  ac- 
tual blessing  to  every  one  living  in  the  colony. 
It  soon  became  evident  that  while  some  residents 
of  the  community  were  on  hand  and  ready  to  do 
their  share  of  the  work,  there  were  quite  a  number 
of  others,  many  of  them  able  to  do,  who  absenteil 
themselves  from  this  work.  The  entire  people, 
coming  together,  formed  themselves  into  an  or- 
ganized community  and  designated  certain  bound- 
aries as  constituting  a  township.  A  majority  of 
the  people  constituting  the  township  took  up  the 
question  as  to  how  the  roads  should  be  built  and 
kept  in  repair.  As  a  matter  of  exact  justice,  they 
finally  decided  upon  tlie  plan  of  levying  a  small 
poll  tax  on  each  able-bodied  man,  and  then  a  road 
tax  on  each  individual  in  the  community,  on  the 
theory  that  every  man  would  use  the  street  more 
or  less,  hence  the  poll  tax,  and  that  the  more  prop, 
erty  a  man  had  the  more  benefit  a  good  road  would 
be"to  him.  By  this  adjustment  it  was  intended 
that  each  man  should  aid  in  the  building  of  that 
road  preciseljr  to  the  extent  that  he  should  have 
been  willing  to  pay  had  the  work  all  been  done 
voluntarily.  If  the  street  was  a  blessing  to  that 
community,  then  the  tax  for  making  the  street 
was  a  blessing.  It  could  not  be  called  a  burden 
by  any  man  who  was  willing  to  do  his  full  share 
in  the  enterprise.  If  he  would  share  in  the  bene- 
fits, why  should  he  not  cheerfully  pay  his  part  of 
the  expense?  Any  man  who  calls  such  a  tax  a 
burden,  it  seems  to  me,  must  be  trying  to  shii-k 
his  part  of  the  necessary  work ;  and  it  is  simply 
one  form  of  saying  that  he  would  Uke  all  the  ad- 


vantages if  he  can  only  have  them  at  the  expense 
of  Ills  neighbors. 

In  a  little  while  the  people  of  each  growing 
community  in  this  country  felt  the  need  ol  educa^ 
tion  for  their  children.  The  first  impression  would 
naturally  be  that  each  man  should  provide  for  th« 
education  of  his  own  children,  and  that  schools, 
if  organized,  should  be  maintained  entirely  by 
private  enterprise.  It,  however,  soon  became  ap- 
parent in  every  community  that  poor  people  often 
have  large  families,  and  that  to  leave 
the  education  of  chUdreu  entirely  to  th« 
ability  and  disposition  of  parents  would  result 
iu  a  large  proportion  of  these  children  growing 
up  in  ignorance.  To  prevent  such  <i  calamity,  it 
becomes  necessary  to  have  the  education  of  the 
rising  generation  looked  after  and  provided  for 
as  a  public  necessity.  The  moment  you  admit 
that  the  eutire  community  ought  to  attend  U)  the 
education  of  all  the  children,  then  the  question 
of  establishing  and  supporting  schools  is  placed 
upon  precisely  the  same  basis  as  the  building  of 
roads.  That  is,  each  individual,  in  every  com- 
munity, ought  voluntarily  to  do  his  full  share 
toward  educating  all  the  children  of  his  district. 
The  school  tax  is  then  simply  a  fair-  distribution 
of  what  each  man  in  the  community  ought  vol- 
untarily to  pay  for  the  cause  of  education.  Hence 
if  education  is  a  blessing  to  a  community,  then 
school  houses  and  school  teachers  are  blessings 
also,  and  the  tax  which  builds  up  one  and  supports 
the  otJier  is  a  blessing,  too.  The  man  who  claims 
that  such  a  tax  is  a  burden  is  simply  declaring 
that  it  is  burdensome  for  liim  to  do  his  full  duty 
to  the  community  in  which  he  lives. 

As  the  various  communities  increased  in  nunv 
ber  and  size,  it  became  necessary  to  have  an  or- 
ganization of  these  various  communities,  and 
hence  came  the  formation  of  counties.  Within 
the  limits  of  these  large  organizations,  rivers 
must  be  bridged.  The  enth-e  people  of  the  entire 
county  were  interested  in  having  more  extended 
communications ;  and,  while  the  bridging  of  a 
large  stream  might  be  bej'ond  the  limited  means 
of  any  one  township,  the  entire  townships  of 
the  county  could  aft'ord  to  undertake  even  so  ex- 
pensive a  work  as  that;  hence  the  county  tax 
for  building  bridges.  Are  not  bridges  blessings 
to  the  entire  people  of  a  countjf  ?  Then  why 
should  they  not  l5e  buUt  by  the  entire  people  ? 
Here  again  the  tax  for  building  bridges  should 
be  exactly  the  amount  that  each  person  ought  to 
pay  voluntarily  for  that  public  improvement. 

VyHEN    A    TAX   IS    A    "BUKDEN." 

All  city  taxes  should  be  levied  only  foi  pur- 
poses that  benefit  the  people  of  the  city.  The 
police  tax,  the  water  tax,  the  tax  for  lighting  the 
streets  and  paving  them,  the  sewerage  tax,  etc., 
should  only  be  levied  for  the  benefit  of  the  peo- 
ple. Indeed,  all  taxes  should  be  levied  upon  this 
one  principle,  that  it  will  simply  require  each 
individual  to  pay  Just  the  amount  for  all  pubUo 
necessities  that  he  would  voluntarily  pay  if  he 
had  a  proper  sense  of  his  duty  toward  the  com- 
munity in  which  he  lives. 

Taxes  should  be  looked  upon  as  "burdens"  only 
when   the   money   is   expended   extravagantly   or 


50 


BIG-    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YE.VB. 


corruptly,  or  wlien  a  large  portion  of  the  property 
owners  evade  the  enlistment  of  their  property,  and 
by  so  doing  throw  an  unfair  amount  on  the  prop- 
erty actually  assessed. 

Let  me  repeat:  In  this  country,  the  people 
levy  the  taxes  on  themselves,  and  if  they  had  the 
power  to  get  an  honest  enlistment  of  the  entire 
property  of  the  country  and  could  secure  an 
honest  expenditure  of  every  dollar  so  raised,  all 
taxes  should  be  blessings.  If  such  a  state  of 
affairs  could  be  realized,  then  to  Ipay  taxes  would 
not  be  called  "burdensome"  any  more  than  one 
would  caU  it  a  "burden"  to  buy  the  food  he 
eats  or  the  clothes  he  wears.  If  all  property  could 
be  fairly  assessed  and  all  money  raised  by  taxa- 
tion honestly  and  carefully  expended  only  for 
public  purposes,  then  this  outcry  against  taxation 
would  cease,  except  from  persons  who  desire  to 
live  at  the  expense  of  other  people. 

STATE   CONTROL   OP  RAILROADS. 

In  answer  to  your  third  question:  Just  what 
kinds  of  business  had  better  be  managed  by  the 
General  Government  is  a  matter  which  has  never 
been  fully  decided  by  the  experience  of  the  past 
ages.  There  has  never  been  any  uniform  practice 
among  the  ciziUzed  peoples  of  the  world  upon  this 
subject.  As  a  general  proposition,  it  is  conceded 
by  most  thoughtful  men  that  the  primary  object 
of  every  governme.nt  should  be  to  protect  the 
lives,  property  and  liberty  of  its  citizens ;  and 
that  no  business  should  be  managed  by  the  nation 
except  such  of  a  public  nature  as  cannot  well 
be   done  by   private  enterprise. 

As  a  rule,  it  is  much  more  expensive  for  the 
Government  to  do  any  kind  of  work  than  it  is  for 
private  individuals.  The  Capitol  of  the  State  of 
New- York  has  already  cost  the  people  of  that 
State  over  twenty  millions  of  dollars.  The 
same  building,  by  individual  management,  built 
by  men  working  for  themselves,  could  have  been 
completed  in  just  as  good  style  for 
less  than  half  that  sum.  As  a  rule,  the  work  done 
by  the  General  Government  is  much  more  expensive 
than  the  same  grade  of  work  done  by  private  in- 
dividuals. I  do  not  beUeve  it  would  be  possible 
for  the  General  Government  to  manage  the  rail- 
roads of  the  United  States  anywhere  near  as  cheap- 
ly and  as  well  as  they  are  being  managed  to-day 
by  the  private  corporations  which  own  and  con- 
trol them.  This  may  not  be  true  to  any  great 
extent  of  the  telegraph  lines. 

As  against  this  theory,  I  am  well  aware  that 
our  great  system  of  mail  service  is  constantly 
quoted.  I  am  ready  to  admit  that  tliis  service, 
taken  as  a  whole,  may  be  named  as  a  great  suc- 
cess. It  is  by  no  means  clear,  however,  that  pri- 
vate enterprise  would  not  have  done  the  same 
work  just  as  well  with  much  less  expense.  True, 
we 'send  our  letters  and  packages  at  a  low  rate; 
but  we  send  them  at  a  lower  rate  than  it  costs  the 
Government.  In  the  United  States,  the  receipts 
of  the  mail  service,  with  the  exception  of  a  very 
few  years,  have  never  been  sufficient  to  pay  the 
expenses  of  the  service.  Several  hundred  mill- 
ions of  dollars  have  been  drawn  from  the  General 
Treasury  to  meet  the  deficiencies  of  that  depart- 


ment. Several  hundred  miUious  more  have  been 
drawn  for  the  purposes  of  building  postoilice  build- 
ings which  have  never  been  charged  up  to  that 
account.  But  the  carrying  of  mails  is  a  matter 
of  so  much  interest  to  almost  every  citizen  in  ;,he 
United  States,  and  must  be  done  over  all  kinds  of 
pubhc  highways,  that  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
it  is,  on  the  whole,  best  that  it  should  be  done,  as. 
it  now  is,  by  the  General  Government.  I  am  not 
sure,  if  the  telegraph  business  could  be  combined 
with  the  postoffice  service,  that  the  same  might  be- 
said  of  that  business.  But  even  admit  that  and 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  Government 
should  also  run  the  railroads. 

I  see  no  reason  why  the  General  Government 
should  own  and  manage  the  great  railroad  sys- 
tems of  this  country  ;  but,  if  the  railroads,  why  not 
aU  the  stage  lines,  all  the  steamboats  and  ves- 
sels doing  business  in  our  coast  trade,  on  the 
inland  lakes  and  rivers  of  the  United  States? 
If  all  those  things  should  be  managed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Government,  why  should  not  the  farms,  the 
factories,  the  mines  and  the  machine  shops  also 
be  managed  and  owned  by  the  General  Government  ? 
It  seems  tO'  me  far  wiser  that  all  such  things 
should  be  managed  by  private  enterprise  leaving 
power  of  certain  limitations  of  them  all  in  the 
hands  of  the  people.  To  add  to  the  present  enor- 
mous patronage  of  the  General  Government  the 
supervision  and  management  of  the  entire  rail- 
road system  would  be  to-  create  such  a  central- 
ization of  power  as  would,  it  seems  to  me,  be 
dangerous  in  the  extreme.  There  are  of  course, 
now  and  then,  enormous  undertakings  which  can 
be  provided  for  oirl.v  by  the  combined  wealth  of 
the  Nation.  The  improvement  of  the  Mississippi 
Eiver,  the  building  of  a  raUroad  to  the  Pacific, 
when  that  was  a  mere  experiment,  may  be  given 
as  instances  of  such  enterprises.  In  short,  my 
idea  is  'that  the  business  of  any  nation  is  always 
safer  in  the  hands  af  private  individuals  than  it 
possibly  can  be  in  the  hands  of  everybody. 

The  idea  of  modern  socialism,  that  the  govern- 
ment should  own  everything  and  manage  every- 
thing, that  the  people  should  all  work  for  every- 
body and  no  one  for  himself,  has  no  foundation 
in  human  organism.  There  is  no'  proof  in  the 
past  experience  of  the  hu  man  race  that  such  a  plan 
would  be  possible.  The  whole  scheme  seems 
to  be  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  good  common 
sense.  Legislation  should  be  so  shaped  as  to  pro- 
tect cnr  people  in  all  laudable  enterprises  and  then 
caref  uLL.v  to  guard  the  people  against  the  encroach- 
ments and  combinations  of  all  corporate  and  asso- 
ciated wealth.  With  these  restrictions  I  would 
give  individual  capacity,  energy  and  enterprise 
full  scope. 

What  the  people  need  is  not  that  Government 
should  control  more  patronage  or  manage  more  en- 
terprises, but  rather  that  the  efforts  of  each  in- 
,  dividual  should  be  properly  enco'Uraged,  so  that 
every  person  shall  have  the  same  chance  of  success 
in  his  honest  endeavor  to  buUd  up  some  successful 
business.  It  is  individual  prosperity  which 
makes  up  the  life  of  a  nation.  People  will  always 
work  more  faithfully  for  themselves  than  for 
everybody.  Give  every  man  an  equal  chance  and 
the  law  of  personal  interest  will  solve  the  problem 


Bia  ISSUES  OF  AN  OFF  yi-;ar. 


of  national  grovvtli  and  individual  piosiicrity. 

SHiLLi    UOVKJiiXMIiNT    BO    B\NK1N07 

In  reply  to  your  last  question,  I  will  say  that 
the  length  of  tliis  article  prevents  a  very  full 
answer.  Witliiu  a  few  weeks  I  hope  to  publish 
my  views  as  to  the  utility  of  National  banks,  in 
wldch  tbis  subject  will   be  more  fully   discussed. 

The  issuing  of  paper  money  or  notes  payable 
on  demand  was  never  resorted  to  ly  this  Nation 
until  it  was  done  as  a  war  measure.  The  present 
greenbacks  wouhl  never  have  bceu  in  existence 
had  not  the  necessities  incident  to  a  civil  war  re- 
quired them.  Tliey  are  simply  demand  notes  of 
the  United  States,  wbicli  the  Government  since 
1879  hiis  redeemed  ou  presentation.  Their  redemp- 
tion and  reissue  oomijels  the  Government  to  en- 
gage in  what  may  be  called  a  species  of  banking 
business.  Tliat  is  another  kind  of  work  which 
I  doubt  the  propriety  of  the  Government  doing. 

At  present  the  National  banks  can  not  atford 
to  accept  the  issue  of  National  bank  bills.  Govern- 
ment bonds  are  at  so  liigli  a  premium  tliat  uo 
National  bank  can  buy  and  hold  them  for  security 
and  receive  only  ninety  cents  of  euculatiuu  for 
each  one  dollar  of  their  face  value,  and  then  make 
a  single  cent  out  of  theii'  circulation  over  and 
above  what  could  bo  made  by  loaning  money  with 
which  the  bonds  are  purchased.  That  this  is 
true  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  over  one 
hundred  millions  of  National  bank  circulation 
have  been  surreuileren   wiiiiin  the  last  ten  years. 

It  seems  to  me  almost  nonsensical  that  the  Gov- 
ernment should  be  e.xpected  to  issue  its  notes, 
payable  on  demanti,  to  meet  what  is,  caileu  tne 
needs  of  privaU.'  individuals.  Our  Constitution 
provides  that  the  National  Governmeiit  shall  have 
entire  control  of  the  coining  ol  money.  That  is 
a  wise  provision,  but  that  is  simply  done  so  that 
the  people  may  know  how  much  pure  metal  tnere 
is  in  each  coin.  That  is  an  entirely  dirt'erent  mat- 
ter  from   issuing  promissory   notes. 

In  a  very  few  years  the  entire  bonded  indebt- 
edness of  tie  United  States  will  be  paid.  When 
that  is  done  what  necessity  will  exist  which  can 
reciuiie  the  Government  to  issue  demand  notes  ? 
The  greenbacks  were  issued  lor  the  purpose  ol  de- 
fraying the  necessary  expenses  ol  the  Government. 
Government  bonds  were  issued  lor  the  same  pur- 
pose. But  at  that  time  our  expenditures  were 
very  much  in  excess  ol  our  revenues.  To-day  the 
revenues  exceed  the  expenditures.  It  seems 
very  clear  that  the  Nation  will  be  able  to  meet 
this  bonded  indebtedness  as  last  as  it  becomes 
due.  The  moment  the  bonds  are  all  cancelled 
then  there  will  be  no  more  interest  to  save.  If 
more  greenbacks  were  issued  the  Government 
could  not  compel  the  holder  ol  the  bonds  to  sur- 
render them  until  they  are  due.  They  will  all 
mature  in  a  few  years  and  will  be  paid  in  a  busi- 
ness-like way.  With  the  receipts  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  excess  ol  its  expenditures,  what  object 
could  be  gained  by  the  Government  issuing  more 
demand  notes  ?  In  the  end  it  would  reduce  itself 
to  the  simple  proposition  as  to  whether  it  would 
be  wise  for  the  Nation  to  issue  circulating  medium 
for  the  purpose  of  loaning  the  same  to  Individuals. 
In  other  words,  if  there  had  been  no  civil  war 
there  would  not  be  in  existence  to-day  a  single 
greenback  or  Treasury  note  payable  on  demand. 
Suppose  that  were  the  condition  of  affairs  to-day. 
Would  you  then  consider  it  wise  for  the  Govern- 
ment to  issue  a  single  dollar  ol  such  money  ?  If 
so,  lor  what  purpose  ?  If  it  would  not  have  been 
•wise  lor  them  to  do  so  except  as  a  war  measure, 
then  why  should  we  not  get  back  as  ctuickly  as 
possible  to  the  point  from  which  we  started  ? 

The  modern  attempt  of  a  lew  men  to  have  the 
Government  embark  in   the   business   of  issuing 


notes,  payable  on  demand,  for  the  purpose  of  loan- 
ing them  to  certain  individuals  on  lime,  is  to  me 
so  visionary  and  preposterous  as  hardly  to  need  any 
no.tice.  Yet  it  seems  to  me  that  the  result  involved 
in  your  question  must  end  in  precisely  that  kind  of 
business.  It  appears  very  clear  tliat  tlie  whole 
people  (that  is  tlie  tiencral  Government)  have  the 
right  to  borrow  mipiie.y  or  even  issue  demand  notes 
in  order  to  njeci  the  imperative  needs  ol  tlic  Gov- 
ernment. But  that  does  not  imply  their  riijht  to 
either  borrow  luojiey  or  issue  such  notes  for  the 
benclit  of  individuals.  The  issuing-  of  silver  and 
gold  certificates  is  an  entirely  dilfercnt  business 
from  the  one  your  question  involves.  In  the  case 
of  those  certificates  the  (lovernment  receives  the 
gold  and  silver  with  which  to  redeem  tliem.  and 
acts  simply  as  a  custodian  of  the  precious  metals. 
That  may  be  a  great  convenience  to  tlic  people  and 
a  wise  plan,  but  that  is  a  very  dilTerent  thin^i  from 
issuing  certificates  on  any  kind  of  property  which 
is  not  use<l  as  money  among  the  nations  of  the 
world. 

In  conclusion,  my  opinion  is  that  some  pian 
should  be  devised  so  that  the  bankinu'  business  of 
the  country  sliould  all  lie  done  liy  biiiiks  and  none 
of  it  by  the  (.'eneral  Government.  As  -i  rule  the 
people  in  their  individual  capacities  will  manage 
the  variety  of  business  in  any  country  much  better 
than  it  can  possibly  be  done  by  the  Genei-nl  liov- 
emment.  R.  G.  HORR. 


LOANS  TO  THE  FARMEES. 


WHY   THE   AIXI.VNCE   DEiMAND   IS   AN   IM- 
POSSIBILITY. 


THE      DIISTINCTION      BETWEEN     "PUBLIC"     AND 

"PKIVATE"     BUSINESS    SHAKPLY    STATED, 

WITH      SOME      OBSERVATIONS      ON 

THE  ROCKEFELLERS.  A5T0RS 

AND       GOULDS. 

To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir :  Why  do  you  persistently  misstate  the  Alliance 
demand!  We  ask  to  be  allowed  to  borrow  money  on  reaJ 
estate  alone.  '  Land  is  considei'ed  to  be  good  secuj-ity. 
Personal  property  is  not  so  good.  No  Alliaece  man 
expects  to  borrow  more  tban  lie  can  give  first-class 
security  for.  A  first  mortgage  on  real  estate  lor  a 
third  or  one-IiaU  of  its  selling  value  would  certainly 
bo  as  good  security  as  any  banlser  could  give.  01 
course  tiie  tow  sliould  be  well  guarded  to  prevent 
frauds  in  assessments,  so  as  not  to  baniirupt  the  Gov- 
ernment, as  the  Argentines  have  done.  It  Is  useless 
to  object  to  paternalism.  The  General  Gov- 
ernment is  endowing  colleg2s,  supporting  experl- 
ment.il  stations,  distributing  seeds  and  publishing 
agricultural  reports.  It  would  have  been  better  L£ 
the  Government  had  built  and  owned  the  railroads 
and  telegraph  Unes,  so  as  to  have  prevented  the 
colossal  fortmies  ol  the  Eockefellers,  Goulds  and 
others.  We  feel  that  these  men  have  not  gained  their 
millions  honestly,  but  have  been  enriched  at  thie  ex- 
pense ol  the  Nation.  M.  CHESEBEO. 
Mandarm,  Fla.,  June  16.  1891. 

This  correspondent  seems  a  little  petulant  be- 
cause I  have  intimated  that  Alliance  men  are 
seeking  to  have  the  Government  loan  money  on 
personal  property  as  security.  As  late  as  June 
6,  during  this  very  month,  J.  I.  Goss,  of  Osceola, 
Fla.,  who  states  that  he  is  now  an  Alliance 
man,  asked  The  Tribune  this  question :  "  Would 
it  not  be  safe  for  the  Government  to  loan  money 


■SS 


BIG-    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    -i-EAR.- 


upon  improved  lands  now  occupied  and  used,  and 
upon  wlieat,  corn,  oats  and  cotton,  insured  and 
in  warehouses,  at  say  one-lialf  the  value  of  the 
land  and  three-rourths  the  value  ol'  the  prod- 
uce ?  Are  not  wheat,  corn,  oats  and  cotton  per- 
sonal propert^r  P  I  wish  these  two  Florida  Alli- 
ance men  would  get  together,  look  over  their 
published  platforms  and  agree  between  themselves 
as  to  just  what  they  want. 

Mr.  Goss  very  plainly  advocates  the  loaning 
of  money  on  the  warehouse  receipts  for  personal 
property ;  and  Mr.  Chesebro  accuses  me  of  mis- 
reprenentatio,n  because  I  took  Mr.  Goss  at  his 
word.  It  would  be  so  much  nicer  if  at  least 
two  of  these  modern  financiers  would  agree  upon 
some  one  thing. 

Let  me  suggest,  however,  fox  the  benefit  ol 
Mr.  Chesebro,  that  such  a  loan  on  wheat,  corn, 
oats  and  cotton,  insured  and  in  warehouse,  is 
better  and  safer  than  loans  on  real-estate.  Such 
loans  can  be  placed  among  business  men  and 
bankers  twice  where  one  can  on  farming  lands. 
My  objection  lies  against  both  of  them  on  the 
simple  ground  that  the  General  Government  has  no 
right  to  engage  in  making  either  kind  of  loans. 

The  money  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States 
and  the  credit  of  this  Nation  both  belong  to  the 
entire  people ;  and  neither  should  ever  be  used 
except  for  public  purposes.  Loaning  money  to 
individuals  is  a  purely  private  matter,  never  a 
public  one.  Our  Alliance  friends  are  constantly 
talking  about  the  loan  on  land  being  as 
safe  as  the  loan  to  the  banks  based 
on  Government  bonds.  But  the  Government 
does  not  loan  to  the  banks.  That  has  been  fully 
explained  already  in  my  answer  to  Mr.  Goss.  A 
National  bank,  a  sa-vings  bank  or  a  private  banili: 
might  own  a  million  dollars'  worth  ol  Government 
bonds  each ;  and  yet,  if  either  of  them  should 
need  money  in  its  business  it  could  not  get  a 
thousand  dollars  from  the  Government  by  pledg- 
ing all  its  bonds  as  security.  In  the  money  cen- 
tres of  the  country  a  million  dollars  could  readily 
be  obtained  with  such  security,  but  not  one  dol- 
lar from  the  National  Treasury.  The  arrangement, 
whereby  National  banks  are  allowed  to  issue  their 
■  own  notes  under  certain  conditions,  and  the 
Government  controls  the  amount  of  said  notes 
and  secures  their  payment,  is  for  the  protection  of 
all  the  people  and  is  a  genuine  public  necessity. 
That  arrangement  is  of  an  entirely  different  na- 
ture from  loaning  mone.v  to  these  same  banks  for 
the  purpose  of  assisting  them  la  the  transaction  of 
their  private  business. 

Will  some  Alliance  man  tell  me  why  the  whole 
j)eople  of  the  United  States  (and  they  are  the 
Government)  should  furnish  me  money  with  which 
to  carry  on  my  private  business,  any  more  than 
the.y  should  loan  me  horses  and  buggies  when  I 
want  to  drive,  or  hooks  and  lines  when  I  want  to 
go  a-fishing  ?  The  Government  might  perhaps  do 
all  these  things  safely ;  but  ought  it  to  dO'  them 
At  all? 

But,  says  our  correspondent,  the  "Government 
endows  colleges,  supports  experimental  stations, 
distributes  seeds  and  publishes  agricultural  re- 
ports." I  know  it  does :  but  only  as  public  meas- 
BUes.     It  never  gives  a  dollar  to  a  Baptist  or  Pres- 


byterian or  Catholic  college,  as  such.  Experi- 
mental stations  are  for  the  benefit  of  the  entii-e 
country.  The  Government  distributes  seeds  in 
order  that  Improved  varieties  of  food  may  be 
secured  for  the  whole  Nation.  It  wUl  send  a  far- 
mer a  bunch  of  extra  fine  wheat,  to  see  if  sojue 
better  grade  of  wheat  than  is  now  being  raised 
cannot  lie  found  for  the  Ijread  of  the  people ;  but 
it  will  not  furnish  the  farmer ,  with  seed  wheat 
for  his  regular  annual  crops.  The  Government 
publishes  agicultural  reports,  geological  sur- 
veys, surgical  operations  in  the  army,  mining 
statistics,  and  census  reports ;  .but  they  are  one 
and  all  for  the  public  good  and  general  use.  On 
that  account,  however,  it  will  not  do  to  assume 
that  the.y  should  also  send  me  Milton  and  B.yron 
bound  in  morooo.  Worcester's  Dictionary  in  calf, 
or  the  "  latest  novels "  in  cloth  lor  my  private 
library. 

It  is  strange  that  these  advocates  ol  Govern- 
mental aid  and  interference  in  the  affairs  of  the 
world  cannot  see  the  distinction  between  private 
and  public  business.  If  the  Government  once 
enters  upon  any  kind  of  private  business,  will 
some  one  tell  me  where  it  should  stop  ?  If  it  has 
tne  right  to  loan  money  to  private  individuals  lor 
their  private  and  personal  use,  then  point  out 
what  business  there  is  in  this  world  in  which  the 
Government  may  not  engage  with  equal  pro- 
priety in  order  to  meet  the  desires  ol  some  other 
portion  of  its  citizens?  Will  some  one  ol  these 
Alliance  men,  who  has  received  new  Ught  on 
these  financial  matters,  grapple  with  that  one 
simple  question  and  answer  that  first? 

It  is  easy  to  see  what  the  answer  ol  Mr.  Chese- 
bro will  be,  because  he  informs  us  that  "it  would 
haveljeen  better  if  the  Government  had  built  and 
owned  the  railroads  and  telegraph  Uues."  How 
does  he  know  that?  Many  very  able,  careful 
and  experienced  business  men  will  tell  him  that 
it  would  liave  been  infinitely  worse.  Does  he 
know  that  to  have  done  what  he  proposes  it 
would  have  cost  the  Nation  Irom  twelve  to  fifteen 
billions  of  dollars  ?  In  what  way  would  the  Gov- 
ernment have  raised  the  money  in  addition  to 
what  the  public  needs  have  required  ?  His  reason 
why  this  should  have  been  done  is  also  given :  "So 
as  to  have  prevented  the  colossal  fortunes  ol  the 
Eockelellers,  Gould  and  others."  Did  the  Eooke- 
lellers  make  their  money  in  railroads?  I  had 
supposed  that  their  accumulations  came  largely 
from  tlieir  connection  v/ith  the  Standard  Oil  Com- 
pany. Is  not  that  a  fact?  If  so,  then  following 
ilr.  Chesebro's  course  of  reasoning,  the  Govern- 
ment should  also  have  taken  control  of  and  man- 
aged the  entire  oil  business  of  this  country.  The 
Astors  have  become  veiy  rich  in  the  real  estate 
business;  hence,  according  to  Mr.  Chesebro,  the 
Government  should  own  and  manage  that  busi- 
ness,  too.  A  large  number  of  our  wealthiest  men 
have  made  colossal  fortunes  in  the  mines  of  the 
United  States ;  therefore,  the  Government  should 
have  owned  and  managed  the  mines.  Mr.  Gould 
is  supposed  to  have  made  an  immense  fortune  in 
railroads  and  telegraph  lines.  Does  it  follow  from 
that  fact  that  the  Government  should  have  built 
and  owned  those  lines  ?  Would  the  ownership 
ol  them  by  the  Government  have  prevented  men 


am  issL'Es  OF  an  (jff  yE.vE^. 


53 


from  getting  great  wealth  in  some  other  way  ? 

Were  tliere  no  very  rich  men  before  raU- 
roads  and  telegrapliing  were  invented  ?  Did  the 
Kothschilds  get  their  immense  fortunes  from  rail- 
roads and  telegraph  lines?  There  never  has  been 
a  time  when  a  few  people  did  not  amass  great 
fortunes,  and  when  large  numbers  did  not  fail 
to  accumulate  at  all.>  These  fortunes  may  be 
made  lioncstly,  hut  are,  no  doubt,  too  often  se- 
cured Vjy  dishonest  methods.  When  honestly  made, 
in  fair,  legitimate  business,  the  owners  have  a 
right  to  them,  and  are  only  accountnlfle  for  a  wise 
and  humane  use  of  them.  When  made  dLshon- 
estly,  the  owners  of  them  arc  both  to  be  pitied  and 
despised. 

I  wish  property  was  more  evenly  distril)uted  in 
this  world.  It  would  be  a  great  improvement  if 
poverty  could  be  eintirely  abolished.  I  wish  times 
could  always  Ije  good.  It  would  please  me  greatly 
to  have  good  wages  for  labor  and  good  prices  for 
the  products  of  farm  and  sbop  at  all  times.  If 
we  could  all  manage  to  be  happy  and  prosperous 
without  giving  any  mortgages  at  all,  that  would 
lie  better  than  to  borrow  money  at  ever  so  low 
a  rate  of  interest.  But  such  is  not  the  condi- 
tion of  affairs  in  tliis  world  at  the  present  time. 
We  are  all  compelled  to  meet  life  as  we  find  it. 
I  have  but  little  of  tliis  world's  goods.  Had  I 
Ijeen  moi-e  saving  of  my  earnings,  such  might  not 
have  been  the  case.  Tlie  Government  is  in  no 
way   responsible   for   my   misfortunes. 

The  members  of  the  Farmers'  AiUance,  as  a' 
rule,  have  seen  hard  times  for  a  few  j-ears  past. 
-My  sympathies  are  all  with  them  in  their  strug- 
gle to  better  their  condition.  What  pains  me  is 
to  see  them  rush  into  such  wild  schemes  and  fol- 
low off  after  ,a  set  of  leaders  who  have  as  yet 
never  organized  any  genuine  reform.  Jlen  who  are 
always  grasping  at  every  new-fangled  notion,  and 
who  are  ever  on  the  alert  to  abandon  any  princi- 
ple and  form  any  combiuation,  for  the  simple 
purpose  of  self-aggrandizement  seldom  help  any 
one  except  themselves.  Of  all  the  methods  men- 
tioned to  enable  the  people  of  this  country  to 
bring  about  better  times  and  greater  prosperity, 
the  most  dangerous  is  tlie  attempt  to  draw  the 
Government  from  its  legitimate  public  work  a.nd 
to  put  under  its  control  the  private  business  of 
the  people.  Such  business  should  always  be  man- 
aged by  individuals,  having  individual  interests 
at  stake  and  feeling  personal  responsibilitj'.  Let 
the  Government  confine  itself  to  pubUc  duties,  and 
let  the  business  of  this  Nation  be  managed  by 
private  skill  and  individual  enterprise.     E.  G.  H. 


HOW  CAN  THE  KANSAS  FARJIEE  PAY  HIS 
DEBTS. 

Sir:  The  celebrated  Alliance  "man,"  Mrs.  M.  E. 
Lease,  spoke  here  last  Tuesday  night.  Below  are  some 
ol  her  statements.     Are  they  truel 

She  said  that  the  National  debt  is  as  large  now 
(compared  wltli  present  prices  of  labor  and  produce) 
as  it  was  at  the  close  of  the  war. 

Also,  that  In  1850  the  common  people  owned  three- 
fourths  of  the  property  of  tlie  country  and  paid  one- 
quarter  of  the  taxes ;  but  that  now  the  common  people 
own  a  fraction  less  than  one-quarter  of  the  property 
and  pay  three-quarters  of  the  taxes. 

She  also  said  that  there  are  60,000  Union  soldiers 


In  tlio  poorhouses  of  tlie  United  States  ;  that,  the  amount 
ol  money  in  circulation  amounts  to  only  S*i  per  capita; 
and  that  the  recorded  Indebtedness  in  Kansas  is  sev- 
eral hundred  doUars  per  capita. 

She  wanted  to  know  how  the  people  of  Kansas  coulA 
ever  e.\pect  to  pay  their  debts  under  such  circum- 
stances. W.  K.  DAVIS. 
NortonviUe,  Kan.,  March  6,  1801. 
In  reply  to  this  correspondent,  I  will  say  that 
the  National  debt  has  been  reduced  since  the  war 
from  about  three  thousand  millions  of  dollars  to 
about  eight  hundred  millions  at  the  present  time. 
If  calculated  on  a  gold  basis,  wages  are  higher 
now  than  they  were  in  1866.  We  were  then  using 
a  largely  depreciated  currency,  and  wages  and 
prices  seemed  much  higher  than  they  actually 
were. 

The  statement  about  taxes  is  absolutely  false. 
No  one  can  tell  what  is  meant  by  the  term  "  com- 
mon people. "  ^V^lo  does  it  include  ?  Who  does 
it  exclude  ?  In  this  country  we  have  no  titled 
classes.  We  are  all  common  people  in  the  United 
States.  Wealth  is  no  more  concentrated  now 
than  it  was  in  1850.  The  poor  people  pay  no 
different  rate  of  taxes  now  than  then.  Taxes  are 
paid  in  this  country  on  precisely  the  same  basis  as 
they  have  been  from  the  foundation  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. It  is  a  rate  on  each  $100.  It  always 
has  been.  Some  rich  people  lie  about  their  prop- 
erty and  cheat  in  the  amount  of  taxes  they  pay. 
They  did  the  same  thing  in  1850. 

Did  the  speaker  tell  in  what  poorhouses  the 
60,000  old  soldiers  are  ?  It  is  easy  for  any  one  to 
stand  up  and  utter  such  a  slander  upon  our  peo- 
ple ;  but  where  is  the  proof  ?  The  people  of  this 
Nation  have  stood  by  the  old  soldiers  grandly. 
Our  immense  pension  rolls  prove  that.  The  De- 
pendent Pension  bill  was  intended  to  place  every 
soldier  out  of  reach  of  the  poorhouse.  It  has  sub- 
stantially done  so.  Such  statements  as  you  refer 
to  are  simply  disgraceful.  If  there  are  60,000 
old  soldiers  in  our  poorhouses,  why  not  tell  us 
where  they  are  ?  Then  they  can  be  removed.  I  have 
never  yet  lieeu  able  to  get  the  names  of  the  poor- 
houses where  it  is  alleged  that  these  okl  soldiers 
are  held.  Until  they  name  the  locations  and 
substantiate  the  statement-  I  shall  refui^e  to  l)c- 
lieve  it.  TeU  us  where  tliese  old  soldiere  are ; 
then  we  will  have  them  removed  to  better  quar- 
ters. To  do  that  would  be  a  grand  work;  and  ta 
be  telling  such  a  tale,  if  it  is  not  true,  is  infamous. 
Next  time  you  hear  this  assertion  made,  call  fol 
the  proof. 

The  statement  as  to  there  being  only  §8  ol 
money  per  capita  in  circulation  in  this  countrj 
is  absolutely  untrue.  On  the  1st  day  of  February 
last  there  was  more  than  three  times  that  amount, 
not  less  than  i524  80  for  each  man,  woman  and 
chUd.  My  statement  is  taken  from  the  official 
reports  ol  the  Government  and  can  be  verified  by 
the  figures. 

I  do  not  know  how  much  the  indebtedness  per 
capita  is  for  each  person  in  Kansas.  It  is  mora 
than  I  wish  it  was ;  but  it  is  only  such  an  amounit 
as  her  people  have  voluntarily  assumed.  The^ 
created  their  debts  in  their  efforts  to  lietter  their 
condition. 

How  can  tliey  be  expected  to  pay  them  ?  is  one 


54 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


of  your  orator's  questions.  Sure  euougli !  I  an- 
swer :  By  honest  work  and  careful,  good  manage- 
ment. How  else  can  any  one  get  out  of  debt? 
Raise  crops ;  live  frugally ;  pay  as  you  go :  and  in 
a  little  time  the  load  will  Ijo  lifted.  Kansas  hal 
great  resources.  Her  people  are  full  of  pluck, 
Two  good  years  wiU  put  her  on  her  feet.  Efe- 
member  thisl  Any  one  who  goes  about  your 
State  teaching  that  there  is  any  way  to  disohargt 
your  debts,  except  by  paying  them,  is  no  frienci 
of  Kansas  or  her  excellent  people.  Good,  honesx 
work  will  help  your  people  out.  Nothing  else 
ever  will. 

These  may  not  be  pleasant  words  to  listen  to, 
but,  before  condemning  them,  please  examine 
them  and  see  if  they  are  not  true.  E.  G.  H. 


DO  FAEMEES  BEAE  BUEDENS  WHICH  MILL- 
OWNEES  DO  NOT? 

NONE  WHATEVER— NOR  ARE  THET  MORTGAGED 

ON  ACCOUNT  OP  THE  TARIFI'— THE  WAT 

TO      PAT      A      MORTGAGE. 

To     tlie     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir:  I  am  a  faa-mer,  and  wotdd  iilie  to  liave  tUe 
following  questions  answered  in  The  Weeidy  Tribune : 
First— Why  should  not  tlie  American  farmer  have 
the  same  riglit  to  trade  liis  sui'plus  farm  products 
lor  Em-opean  manufactures  that  the  A.-nerlcan  mill- 
owner  has  to  trade  every  production  of  mili-goods 
for  South  American  and  Asiatic  products? 

Second— Can  you  give  some  reason  why  tlie  Amer- 
ican mill-owner  should  be  protected  against  this  ti'ade 
of  the   American   farmer? 

Tlinrd- Please  explain  why  the  trade  of  our  surplus 
farm  products  should  not  be  as  free  as  the  trade  oi 
our  surplus  mill  products  ? 

Fourth— Why  should  fai-mers  bear  burdens  that  mlll- 
OAvners   do  not? 

Fifth— AATiy  has  real  estate  in  Delaware  County, 
N.  Y;  depreciated  nearly  one-hall  in  value  within 
fifteen  or  twenty  years  1 

Sixtli- If  the  Americaoi  farmer  Iras  been  protected, 
why  does  the  record  oi  the  Clerk's  oliice  of  Dela- 
ware County,  N.  Y.,  show  that  two-thmls  of  the 
farms  of  that  county  are  under  mortgage? 

Kespeetlully,  E.  C.  HODGES. 
East  Sidney,  N.  Y.,  May  15,  18yi. 
In  answer  to  your  first  question,  I  know  of  no 
reason  in  the  world  why  the  farmers  of  the 
United  States  should  not  have  precisely  the  same 
right  to  sell  all  their  products  in  Europe  or 
Asia  that  the  mill-owners  have.  I  know  of  no 
law  that  gives  the  slightest  advantage  to  the  one 
over  the  other. 

I  am  not  certain  as  to  what  you  mean  by  your 
second  question.  I  am  not  aware  that  tlie  Ameri- 
can mill-owners  are  in  any  way  protected  against 
the  American  farmers.  The  policy  of  the  pro- 
tective tariff  is  to  take  care  of  and  build  up  every 
American  industry,  whether  it  be  in  the  factory,  in 
the  shop,  in  the  mine,  or  on  the  farm.  I  Imow 
of  no  discriminations  in  favor  of  the  one  against 
the  other. 

Your  third  question  imphes  that  there  is  some 
disadvantages  placed  upon  the  surplus  products  of 
the   farm  that  are   not   placed    upon  the   surplus 


products  of  the  mills.     I  supposed  that  all  products 
of  this  country  were  treated  pi-ecisely  alike. 

Your  fourth  question  also  intimates  that  certain 
burdens  are  placed  upon  farm  products  wliich  are 
not  placed  upon  otlier  products  of  the  United 
States.  I  know  of  no  such  burdens.  If  there  are 
any,  they  certainly  should  be  removed.  Every 
kind  of  industry  in  the  United  States  should  have 
a  fair  chance,  and  be  equally  protected.  The 
real  object  of  levying  duties  on  the  protective 
plan  is  to  give  our  own  manufacturers  and  farmers 
the  advantages  of  our  superior  markets.  The 
late  tariff  law  was  drawn  in  the  spirit  of  that 
system.  From  beginning  to  end,  it  favors  the 
farmers  more  than  any  tariff  bill  ever  before 
enacted  in  the  United  States.  If  there  is  any  dis- 
crimination in  that  bill,  it  is  most  surely  in  favor 
of  the  farmer,  and  not  against  him.  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  imagine  just  what  it  is  of  which  you  com- 
plain. 

In  answer  to  your  fifth  question  :  I  am  not 
familiar  enough  with  the  condition  of  the  various 
agricultural  industries  in  Delaware  County  to 
state  why  farms  have  thus  depreciated.  Indeed,  I 
am  not  sure  that  the  depreciation  is  anywhere 
near  as  much  as  you  state.  It  would  seem  from 
your  question,  howevei^  that  these  lands  brought 
a  good  price,  fifteen  or  twenty  years  ago.  The 
same  tariff  was  in  existence  then  as  for  the  past 
five  years.  Was  it  the  same  tariff  that  made  them 
high  then  that  makes  them  low  now  ?  Is  it  not 
possible  that  the  depreciation  of  real  estate  has 
taken  place  on  account  of  conditions  entii'ely 
outside  of  and  foreign  from  tariff  legisjation  ?  To 
make  your  comparison  of  value,  j-ou  should  go 
back  to  1856  and  1857,  and  take  the  price  of 
farms  in  Delaware  County  at  that  time,  Avhen  we 
were  living  under  a  low,  free-trade  tariff,  and 
compare  prices  then  with  prices  now.  I  will 
guarantee  that  you  will  find  no  such  difference 
in  prices  as  you  now  mention.  The  distress  of  the 
farming  communities  for  the  past  five  years  has 
been  nothing  as  compared,  with  the  terrors  of 
1857.  For  proof  of  this  statement,  ask  any  of 
your  neighbors  whose  hau-,  like  mine,  is  white 
with  age. 

In  reply  to  your  last  question :  Let  me  suggest 
that  you  may  have  taken  the  number  of  mortgages 
from  mere  heaisay.  If  you  wiU  examine  the 
records  of  your  county  carefully,  I  will  venture 
the  assertion  that  not  one  in  live  of  those  farms 
are  under  mortgage.  I  doubt,  if  over  one  in  ten 
will  be  found  in  that  condition.  TJie  same  state- 
ments have  been  I'epeatedlj'  made  for  the  last  three 
years  about  the  farming  lands  of  my  own  State 
of  Michigan,  and  of  Iowa ;  and  yet  the  census 
returns  just  completed  show  that  only  about  one 
farm  in  nine  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  only  about 
one  in  eleven  in  the  State  of  Jlichigan,  is  under 
mortgage  at  all.  The  reports  from  botb  States 
show  that  those  mortgages  have  Iieen  largely 
reduced  in  the  last  few  years.  The  same  reports 
further  show  that  the  very  largest  portion  of 
those  mortgages  were  placed  on  these  farms  for 
the  purpose  of  buying  inore  lands,  or  Ijuilding  new 
houses  on  the  same.  And  in  each  State 
it  was  found  that  less  than  2  per 
cent    of    such    mortgages    were    given    to    pay 


l!!(i     I- SITES    OF     AN'    OFF     \F.\R. 


the  running'  i>.\|)Cmscs  of  tlic  fiuiiiors.  It  is  luiiig  hini  a.  better  reWjy-il.  In  my  judgment  the 
such  an  easy  thing  to  claim  that  eveiylhiug  way  to  solve  tliis  mortgage  trouble  is  to  plant  and 
is  going  to  ruin,  and  to  assume  that  everybody  ia  sow  and  reap  and  hoe,  harvest,~Tdtg  and  sell.  In 
mortgaging  his  home,  but  it  is  quite  a  dill'erent  time  that  will  dispose  of  the  problem.  Not  a 
thing  to  count  up  the  instances  and  get  at  the  single  I'arm  has  been  mortgaged  on  account  of  the 
exact  facts.  I  make  this  prediction  that  wheji  tarilt  laws.  Not  one.  More  than  that,  it  you 
the  statistics  shall  be  fully  reported,  the  property  should  adopt  free-trade  in  this  country  tJ-moiTow, 
iu  the  cities  of  the  United  Stales,  the  projMjrly  the  mortgages  would  still  be  there ;  and  you  would 
owned  by  manufacturers,  the  property  owned  by  cripple  the  manufacturing  industries  and  destroy 
the  great  corporations,  including  the  raihoads  of  your  own  borne  markets.  My  word  for  it,  the 
tlie  United  States,  will  be  found  to  be  moiv  dceplj-  mortgages  would  then  surelj'  remain  there  un- 
mortgaged to-day  than  are  the  farms.     I  am  not  paid.                                                       K.  U.  IIOIiE. 

sure  that  1  cannot  almost  count  on  the  lingers  of  • 

uiy  hands  every  railroad  in  the  United  States  that  ^  FAEMEE'S  TAEIFF. 

is  free  from  a  mortgage  ;■  and  ^et  we  seldom  hear 

tliose  mortgages  mentioned.  protection   to   the   home  product. 

The  mortgage  is  a  device  used  by  people  for  the  The  Tribune  is  ashed  to  reprint  the  table  below 

purpose  of  obtaining  money  with  wliich  they  hope  repeatedly  for  the  benefit  of  all  concerned, 

to  better  their  condition.     The  great  mass  of  farm  Not  one  article  of  farm  produce  which  can  be 

mortgages  are  no  exception  to  this  rule.     Farmers,  raised  in  the  United  States  in  quantity  sufficient 

like  other  business  men,  have  borrowed  money  for  to  supply  tlie  home  market  failed  to  receive  pro- 

the    purpose    of    tloing    more    business,    and    have  tcction  iu  the  ilcKimey  bm.     Upon  most  of  th« 

given  mortgage  security  for  the  payment,  rather  articles    which  the  farmers  of  the  United  States 

than   seek   ijfersonal   indorsement.        In   some    in.  produce  in  large  quantity    an  increased  protection 

stances  they  would  perhaps  have  done  better  not  has  been  given  by  raising  the  duty  on  tne  foreign 

to   have  made  the   loans.        That  is  uudoubteilly  articles   imported    in   competition   with   our   own 

often  the  case  with  large  numbers  of  other  people  produce.     The  following  list  speaks  for  itself: 

who  borrow  money;  but  having  made  the  loans,      ^^^,^^^   lo^i.t'^^'J^u.  3otw.X?L 

having  dune  it  according  to  their  own  best  judg-     Bui;KMiie;vt    lo  pei' ceut.  15  cts.  bush. 

ment,  why  should  so  much  be  said  about  these  wueat'"'''.."!'.'!v;.V.::::::::-JO  cts!  Kush.         25  ct's!  bust 

same  mortgages?     I  know  of  no  way  honestly  to     W"l«   ,■■■■- ?  "^P*-  ]?•  \'^ '■'J*' HI" 

discharge  a  mortgage  except  by  paying  it,  and  I     uay  *-2  ton.  «4  ton 

can  see  no  possible  advantage  that  could  accrue  to  K"?r  "".■.■.'.".■■.■.'.■.■.■.■.■.■.■.'.■.■.'.'     Free!                  5"c£!'d.cKea. 

the  farmers  who  owe  these  mortgages  by  decreas-  l?™^'"'ij™'-^,--,,-;.V.V.-.Vlo  pe'.  cint.             40cts"-bush. 

ing  the   number  of  shops  and   factories,  and  thus      Kuvsery    stocii: ifiee.  20  per  cent. 

sending  more  people    who  now  consume  the  food  'Vin/iu4;  "ii-y"?:;.":.':.:.".".'.".'."     iKe.                  "c'l.'ffr*^ 

of  the  farmers    out  on  the  farms  and  set  them  to      ■B|!^:^".','ua"'JJfrk 1  ctf '  nl;  lets'*' 

raising  food,  which  wouUI  siuiplv  increase  the  glut     Mutton   10  pei- cent.  2  cts.  iti! 

of  the  farmer's  market.  f.'^IJjfJ^:;  l';;;L.Jd  ■.;:.'.:.:.;.lo'p'er  cent.          I  ctli  m. 

I  have  a  little  mortgage  on  my  own  farm.     1  JJcisos  wonn  over  $150....20  p^>^r  «;nt.         Jj^'o'^f^^'^'"- 

am  quite  sure  that  the  best  method  for  me  is  to     Mule^  ' ...'.''. |J0  ner  cent.  $30  iiead. 

try  and  earn  the  money  to  pay  it  olf,  and  tliat  such  cattle;  "over 'Si'yearii^iii^.'So  per  cent!          llO  head. 

a  procedure  will  be  much  more  to  my  benefit  than     Ji"?*    V 20  per  cent  $1  50  head. 

,  T  J      *-  Sheep,  voarlin^s  20  per  cent.  7o  cts,  head. 

the  spending  my  time   in  finding   fault  with  my-      Sheep,  over  a  j-ear 20  per  cent.  $1  50  head. 

^^^■fi  -f  ,    1        ■         1  J    4.1  T   4.1  1  J.       ^^iUt    10  per  cent.  5  cts.  gallon. 

self  for  having  borrowed  the  money.     I  thought  onion-                                10  pr-r  cent           40  cts  ^ush 

at  the  time  I  gave  the  mortgage  I  could   better  ^}^%i,^i^- J^-^ts^'^.       ll^^lvcTt^- 

my   condition  by  purchasing   another   small  piece      Tobacco,  not  stenmied. 75  cts.  per  Ih.        $2  per  w. 

„*i„„,i     ,T    ■    -  T  ^1  •    1    ^1      ■  ^^       ^      Tobacco,    stemmed $1  !n.  $2  75  per  Ih. 

Of  land  adjoining  my  own.     I  think  the  investment  Fruit   brand.7                     82  gall.                 $■'  50  gall. 

vras  a  good  one,  even  now,  but  whether  good  or  ^^''SiSa^  --V/^^Zu'"'-           Iwlo  foa.'' 

not,   it   was   mv   own    doing.     ITie   mortgaae   was      Hemp,  hackled  Mo  ton.  $.50  ton. 

„„4.          »,  „      ,          1       4.,                   ■          4,            -1             ^  Wool.  Class  1.  tlnwa.?hed.. 10  &  12  cts.  «..       11  cts.  It). 

put  on  the  place  by  the  exercise  of  my  judgment.  Washed.. -.20  &  24  cts.  ir,.     22  cts.  iti. 

No  outsider  induced  me  to  enter  upon  the  enter-  class  2.  umva'sh^edilfo  I  12  cts'.  1.'     1?  cts!  ».' 

prise  in  any  way,   and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  ,        „       scoured. ... 30  ct  30  cts.  iii.     30  cts.  m. 

,     ^,  .        .    ^     '        -  ,                        ,       -        ,         ,  Class    3. Under  13  cts.  2-2  cts  Mi                 32  per  cent, 
manly  thing  is  to  stand  bj'  my  own  head  and  make  Over  13  cts.  5  cts.  ft                50  per  cent, 
the  best  of  the  situation.  Bounty  on  American  sit9'ar..None.                     1h  &  2  cts.  m. 
To  listen  to  the   clamor  about  moi-tgages,  one  This   by  no   means   covers   the   whole   subject, 
would  think  that  some  hobn-obUn  had  been  through  Im^^ever.     The  McKiuley  bill  in  full  (printed  by 
the  country  putting  mortgages  upon  farms  with-  "^^^^  Tribune  in  pamphlet  form,  old  and  new  rates 
out  tie  consent  of  the  owners.     Such  Is  not  the  compared:    price,    10    cents   a   copy)     alone   gives 
case.     As  a  rule,  these  mortgages  were  all  made  to  ^"^'  particulars.                                                      -    ...-T 
secure  money  for  what  seemed  at  the  time  to  be  foreign  farm  proditcts 
a  good  scheme.     Hard  times  followed  and  payment  More  than  §213,000,000  worth  of  foreign  farm 
has  been  impossible.     Times  are  better  now.   Farm  products  in  the  natural  state  was  imported  into 
products   are   bringing   a   good   price    once   more,  the   United    States    during   the    calendar   year   of 
And  this  is  the  time  to  stop  grumbling  and  go  to  1890,  all  of  which  should  have  been  raised  by  the 
raising  crops.     The  wheat  all  over  the  'West  looks  farmers  of  this  country  and  been  a  source  of  in- 
promising.     The   hard   work    of   the    farmer   will  come   to   them.     The   McKinley   biU   was   framed 


16 


Bia    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


with  a  view  to  enable  the  fanners  of  America  to 
get  possession  of  this  large  business  and  themselves 
lupply  the  bullc  of  the  $213,000,000  of  farm  prod- 
ucts imported.  The  following  wiU  show  how 
much  American  agriculture  is  interested  in  this 
feature  of  the  McKinley  bill  (the  figures  represent- 
ing the  net  imports— that  is  to  say,  the  total  im- 
ports, less  the  small  quantity  of  each  kind  of 
foods  re-exported  during  the  year) : 

Quantity.         Value. 
20,284  $187,007 

40,703  4.14f 


Animals,   etc. ; 
Ljjve  Ciittio,  No 
Horses,  No. 


Sheep,    No. 


356,820 


1,199,141 
a50,507 

1,981,149 

2,910,437 

25,836,098 

1,282,271  1,277,250 


088,013 

76,522  32,913 

9,431,826  1,395,602 


All  otlier,  including  fowls 

Feather^,  natural 

Hair  

Hides  and  skins 

Bristles,    lb 

Provisions : 

Meat  products 

Butter,    ITi 

Cheese,    » -, -Tin^^a 

Eggs,  ■■doVensV.V.V.V.V.V.V.V.V.       12,194,506  1,094,812 

^'''cotton,   raw.   It) 10,928,963  1'5™.?J9 

Flax,   tons- 7,303  1.956,182 

Hemn     tons  25.o29  4,591, fie4 

Woof' ft  .!;:::;:...;.:.. 105,800,747    15,057,748 

Cereals,   etc. ; 

Barley,    bush 

Barley    malt,    bush 

Corn,   bush 

Oats,    bush 

Rye  and  wheat 

Other  breadstuffs  v -„-.:; 

Oatmeal,    Ills 1,065,6/1 

Linseed,    IDs 2,570,284 

Other    seeds 
Rico    fts. 


Rice    flour,  meal,  etc.,  fts 
Yegetables. 

Beans  and  peas,  bush — 

Potatoes,     .bush 

Pickles  and  sauces 

Other    vegetables 

Vegetables,    pieserved. 


9,365,614  5,044,573 

281.036  194.478 

2,135  1,489 

13,015  6,197 

AU  re-exported.  ^^ 

27,433 

2,939,838 

1,513,399 

76,707.202  1,802,986 

64,922,264  1,102,560 

1,569,080  1,703,883 

3,990,502  1,046,323 

.; 514,578 

972,015 

__                       _                    666,772 

TobVcco,  ~rr>. '...'' "'.'.!.'. 26,792,869  17,595,189 

Molasse4,    gal  29  546,617  4,584,540 

Sugar?*  -  - 3,068,761,690  89,992,511 

Fruits',    etc. :  ^ 

Lemons ?'047'l"4 

PlSSfs^\nd'prunes,'¥:.';.";.'".       61,368,200  2',803;901 

Raisins    ft... 43,077,097  2,227,838 

Other    fruit! I'g33,019 

Preserved    fruits .;-;,--■■;,  I'SZ-S'-Sn 

Almonds,     ft 7,333,086  973, dOO 

Hay,   tons-    99,314  844,.282 

Hopk,    ft 5,320,579  ^.^i^.oQS. 

Vofttile    oils,    ft 1,172,931  225,987 

Hemlock  bark,  cords 46,231  215,330 

Total     $213,003,321 

It  ought  to  be  mentioned  tliat,  in   addition  to 

the   articles   referred   to   above,   there   were    also 

imported    into    the    United    States    during    1800 

about  §97,000,000  worth  of  manufactured  goods, 

made  out  of  the  raw  materials  of  agriculture,  the 

raw   materials   tor   which   were   not     but   might 

have    been   supplied    by    American    farmers     had 

the  goods  been  produced  in  this  country,  namely : 

Manufactures  of  hemp,  flax,  etc $26,892,310 

Manufactuirs   of   hair 162,773 

Leather  and  manufactures  of 12,538,550 

Manufactures  of  tobacco _4, 160, 613 

Manufactures  of  wool   53,603,022 

Total    $97,417,208 

Are  not  the  farmers  ititeresred  in  the  success 

of  the  McKinley  bill? 


no  recollection  of  ever  making  such  a  statement. 
If  I  did  make  it,  it  was  done  Inadvertently,  and 
is  not  true. 

We  have  a  class  of  people  who  are  constantly 
claiming  that  the  price  of  wheat  is  absolutely 
fixed  in  this  country  by  the  price  in  England. 
That  proposition  I  have  frequently  disputed,  and 
have  stated  that  Great  Britaiu  does  not  purchase 
10  per  cent  of  our  wheat,  and  that  such  10  per 
cent  hardly  controls  the  price  of  the  other  9  0 
per  cent.  I'he  agricultural  reports  show  that 
we  have  exported  an  average  of  128,000,000 
bushels  of  wheat  each  year  for  nine  years,  but 
the  same  reports  show  that  Great  Britain  bought 
only  about  40,000,000  of  bushels  each  year  for 
five  years  past.  In  1890  we  raised  of  wheat 
.399,262,000  bushels.  That  year  Great  Britain 
bought  of  us  only  38,240,523  bushels.  That,  you 
see,  is  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  entire  yield. 
An  average  yield  of  wheat  for  the  past  twelve 
years  has  been  about  445,000,000  bushels  per  year, 
and  of  late  England  lias  not  tal;en  one-tenth  of  it ; 
but  (ireat  Brit-iin  and  the  rest  of  the  world  have 
together  consumed  about  one-fourth  of  it. 

Does  Mr.  Ward  suppose  for  a  moment  that  I 
would  purposely  misstate  the  facts  about 
such  a  matter .'  I  may  have  said 
that  we  consume  in  this  country  fully 
90  per  cent  of  all  the  products  of  our  farms— 
that  is,  taking  them  all  together,  wheat,  corn, 
oats  and  all  the  rest.  That  is  a  statement  I  have 
often  seen ;  and  one  verj'  able  and  careful  statis- 
tician asserts,  that  we  do  not  export  over  8  per 
cent  of  all  four  products.  Is  not  that  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Ward  has  so  often  seen  ?  M(3re  than 
that— is  not  that  true  ?  Will  our  correspondent 
devote  himself  to  its  examination  ? 

From  the  best  data  that  I  can  find  that  state- 
ment is  absolutely  correct.  If  it  be  true  that  over 
9  0  per  cent  of  .all  farm  products,  find  a  home  mar- 
ket  in  the  United  States,  is  not  that  even  more 
significant  than  it  would  be  of  wheat  alone  ?  It 
has  not  been  true  of  wheat  for  ten  years  past. 
I  predict  that  it  will  be  true  of  wheat  in  less  than 
five  vcars.  In  1880  we  exported  over  186,000,- 
000  bushels  of  wheat:  in  1888  only  about  88,000,- 
000  bushels.  It  Is  easy  to  see  where  \\.e  will  soon 
bring  up.  It  will  be  but  a  few  years  wlien  our 
own  people  wiU  eat  all  the  wheat  we  raise. 

R.  G.  HOER. 


FAEM  PRODUCTS  EXPORTED. 

Sir :  Will  you  please  state  in  Weekly  Tribune  upon 
what  authority  Mr.  Horr,  among  others,  mata's  the 
statement  tliat  %ve  are  using  m  tins  country  90  per 
cent  o£  all  tlie  wheat  produced,  wliile  the  AgricultmaJ 
Department  asserts  that  for  nine  years  preceding  1889 
tlie  average  exports  were  128,000,000  bushels.  Such 
assertions  as  thai  of  Mr.  Horr  have  been  numerous  tlie 
last  year.  A.  WARD. 

Clyde,  N.  Y.   ; 

Let  me  say,  m  reply  to  'Mr.  Ward,  that  I  have 


WHO    WAS    IT   THAT    "  ROBBED  "    FARMER 
BRANCH  ?. 

EVIDENCE    OF    GUILT    ON    THE    PART    OP    MER- 
CHANT   KNOX— AN    OBJECT    LESSON    IN 
THE    STUDY    OP    THE    TARIFF. 
To     the     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir:  I  inclose  herewith  a  clipping  from  "The  Wis- 
consin Agriculturist,"  published  without  comment,  as 
an  object  lesson  to  instruct  farmers  liow  they  are- 
" fleeced"  by  the  "robber  tariff."  Will  Mr.  Horr  aid: 
in  undeceiving  those  of  us  who  would  be  glad  to  be 
wise  in  such  matters  ?  V.  N.  LESTER. 

Ottawa,  Kan. 

The  following  is  the  entire  clipping  sent  by 
our  correspondent : 

"Tlie  Buffalo  Courier"  says  that  some  time  ago 
Senator  James  K.  Jones  asked  C.  E.  P.  Brecldnridge,  of 
the  House  Ways  and  Means  Commirtee,  to  prepare  for 
AV.  L.  Terry,  of  Little  Rock,  a  statement  of  tlie  amouait 
of  tariff  duties  on  a  bUl  of  goods  bought  by  a  rep- 
resentative fanner.  In  reply  Mr.  Brecliinridge  fur- 
nished an  exhibit  based  on  actual  transactions  between 
E.  M.  Knox,  a  merchant  of  Pine  I'Jufl,  Ark.,  and  D.  W. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF  AN    OFF    YEAR.  57 

Branch,  a  farmer,  wlio  bought  tlio  goods.     Mr.  Breck-  never  the  case.     No  man  slioukl  have  known  this 

inrldge   explains   that   ••  tlus   Is    calculated   upon   the  better  tlian  Mr.   Breckinridge.     I  doubt  if  there 

bssls  of  cost  from  the  books  of  Mr.  Kno.x  and  upon  jg  a,^  article  in  the  whole  list  on  which  one  cent 

the  rate  of  taxes  actuaUy  paid  upon  competing  articles  ^^  ^^^^,  j^^^^,  g^,^^  ^,gg„  pj^jj,_      -p,jg  j,jj[  j^  ^^^^  ^^ 

•t  the  ports  as  provided  by  law."     The  blU  as  it  ap-  ^j^^^^^  entirely  of  articles  produced  in  the  United 

pears  i..  Mr.  Knox's  boobs  Is  subjoined:  g^^^^_   ^^^^^    ^^   ^^^.^^^    ^^^    ^    ^^^^,^^    .^    ^^ 

,r'20-To  ,a,.im..n'''ul'?of  clothes....  *u  00     "sTod  country  to-day  as  cheaply  as  in  the  Old  World. 

2  iiair  broKaiis.  «l  05 8.30  75         To  get  at  this  question   intelligently,  we  need 

F»b.    6-^  pair  ^Uow'iiiVcs".'!!!!!!!!..!.'.".'.'         70  16  not   consider   just  what   Mr.    Knox    charged    Mr. 

1  pair  uovs'   ijniKaiis I'^s,  29  Branch  for  the  goods.     Tlie  actual  amount  charged 

V^h    i7 1  box  axle  gri-a^c ro  .;  ^ 

ffeb.  21— 1  A\er\  pioui:h 3  50        109  has   no   bearing  whatever  on   the   question.     The 

^   nails  M"ot'55c°'^'..'.-".-!'-°-"'?^      105  29  real  question  is.  Did   Mr.   Knox  himself  have   to 

1  buBbel  saltj  75c. ;  1  pair  miss's  pay   for   those  goods  more  money   on   account  ot 

tlht.  «— 1  pair   shoes"  '$i'75';   i'pair'ot  "  the   duties   le%'ied   on   foreign   goods  of  the  same 

1  wf'wawn>i'6ot".'. ■■.".'.'.  ■■.".■.  ■.■.■.■.".■.      "?5  30  class  imported  than  he  would  have  been  compelled 

M»i.  so— 1  iiair  brogans 100  37  to    pay   had    no   such   duties   been   levied    on   the 

i  ^water "^"bucket,  °25c".V  "i    spool         "  foreign  goods,  and  had  no  such  articles  been  pro- 

AP.U  o-ii'^ra<is^naiis;bc:.-;.;;:;::::::::     11       u  'i^^ed  in  this  country,  or,  if  produced  in  thia 

AiirU  22—2  hats,  Ofic. ;  1  yard  lawn,  60o. ;  country,    had    they    been    manufactured    without 

yanir'faUco',''  f6c.^"'''3 ■  yaids  the  protection  of  the  tariff?     Just  how  much  Mr. 

jeans,  50c..... 150  70  Knox  swindled  Mr.  Branch  may  be  an  important 

^a    dozen    thread 40  13  ....  ,         .  ,     ^ 

»2  yards  tcklng,  25o 3  00        125  side  question,  but  it  has.  no  bearing  whatever  on 

1  set  cups  and  sauceis 75  29  ,  ,    . 

M»y     »— 1  knife 76  26  the  real  issue. 

June   8-2  pair  n.en's  shoes 4  00  47  Let  me  illustrate.     There  are  sevei-al  charges  in 

1    nair    susiicnders 75  20  ,,  .,  ,        _  , 

jone  24-10  yards  bleached  domistlc,  12120.       125  54  this   bill    for   nails   at    G    cents   per   pound.     Take 

5uly  26-2  8yU'^,'=l„°5'^^?^«I  40c  .*^:  :•.::;■.".:    ^"io        ^II  this  eleven  pounds  of  nails  at  6  cents  per  pound. 

10  yards  gingham'  lOc 100  5  66    cents:    tariff.    14    cents.      That   is    11-4    cents 

1  currycomb  and  brush 16  5  ,..,,.  ,  j      „        .i  «»,«,- 

Aug.  13-36  yards  bagging,  9o 8  16  76  per  pound  tariff  on  each  pound  of  nails— or  §1  25 

^  ''nam''5"?f'fl0*c^..^.°.'..^.^..'.''.'f°'!*  t^"^   °°   each   keg   of    100   pounds.     Wlien   you 

eept,    &-14  pounds  nails,  5c 70  21  come  to  look  at  the  price  of  nails  quoted  in  the 

^    sSk'^ioc..^.'^^'.";...^."..''.''."''."^        20  6  various  cities  where  they  are  made  in  the  United 

eept.  16-35  yarte  bagging,  ■'9  pound,  8c...       2  80  95  States  and  find  that  Mr.  Knox  could  have  bought 

1  bundle  ties 100  39  .,,,,. 

10  yards  Osnaburgs,  lie 110  34  them  for  1?1  75  a  keg.  then  you  will  see  how  dis- 

Oct.  '>*-l^^^^J^^2tt9l''li^i'9i5b::":::.      11°        Itl  honest  the  statement  of  Mr.  Breckinridge  is.  that 

io''yards'woJ8tod''2o6:;;::::::::::      200  I?  Farmer  Branch  had  paid   14  cents  tariff  on  those 

13  yards  worsted,'  17c.. '.'!.. '!...'.'.'.'       2  20  95  nails.      Merchant    Knox    only    paid    19  3-4     cents 

1  set  goWets.!."!;!.!!.'.'.'.";;'-'"'^'.".'         65  li  for  t^«  eleven  pounds,  to  which  should  be  added 

t  set  knives  and  forks.""!.'.." 2  75  91  freight,  which  would   leave  only   5  3-4   cents  for 

t  dishes.   40c.   and   00c 1  00  3fi  ^,     °      ',  ^      ,  .,,         ,  i       ^        .,.„,.,.  . 

JS'yards  bagging,  8c 2  80  99  the  real  cost  of  the  eleven  pounds  of  nails,  that  is 

ibimdletiei -       3  13     95  ^^  ^^,^  j^  ^j^py  gp^j^^  ^-,g  p,.oji,oed  for  §1  75  a  keg. 

Total  $10150     $3380  less    the    tariff,    §125.     In    other   words,    if   Mr. 

I  give  this  clipping  in  full  because  it  is  a  fair  Breckinridge  tells  the  truth,  then  nails  can  be  made 
epccimen  of  the  rubbLsh  which  the  free- trade  for  §1 0  a,  ton,  which  is  less  than  the  price  of  pig- 
press    is    constantly    putting   forth    on    the   tariff  iron. 

question.     It   is   amazinir  that  as  able  a  man  as  Again,  here  is  another  item:        One  bushel  of 

Mr.  Breckinridge   is   acknowledged  to  be    should  salt,    75   cents,   on  whicli   tlie   tariff  would    be   a 

resort  to  such  a  trick  to  deceive  the  people.     Let  trifle  over  C  cents.     What  can  Mr.  Knox  buy  that 

us  examine  the  statements  of  this  oUDPing.  bushel  of  salt  for?     In   Michigan   it  would   coBt 

I  point  out  fii-st  that  the  bill  of  goods  was  sold  hm    on'y    8    cents :    in    New- York,    7    cents ;    in 

(our  years  ago,   and   a  new  Tariff   bUl  has  been  Kansas,  9  cents.     To  this  must  be  added  freight, 

passed  since  then.       However,  the  previous  tariff  in  order  to  find  out  how  much  he  robbed  Farmer 

was  a  protective  one,  and,  in  substance,  the  situa.  Branch:    still,    that   is   not   to    be    considered   in 

tion  was  tlie  same  as  now.  determining   how   much   of  that  price   should   be 

It  seems  that  Mr.   Breckinridge  was  asked   by  charged  up  to  tlie  tariff.     If  he  had  bought  foreign 

Senator  Jones,  of  Arkansas,  to  prepare  a  statement  salt,  he  would  still  have  had  to  pay  the  freight, 

of  the  amount  of  tariff  duties  on  a  bill  of  goods  Ii  sliort,  salt  is  selling  to-day  in  Michigan  for  less 

bought  by  a  representative  farmer.     In  reply  Mr.  than  the  tariff  on  the  foreign  salt  and  is  cheaper 

Breckinridge  sends  a  bUl  of  goods  actually   pur-  than  it  is  produced  abroad.     Why,  then,  does  Mr. 

chased  by  a  Mr.  Branch  from  a  merchant  by  the  Breckinridge    claim    that    the    tariff    roblied    Mr. 

name  of  Knox,  at  Pine  Bluffs,  Ark.  ■    Mr.  Bi-eckin-  Branch  on  salt  ?     He  knows  better.     The  robbing 

ridge   then  makes    out  and   places   oi)posite   each  was    done    by    Merchant    Knox,    and    not    Dy   the 

article  "the  taxes  actually  paid  upon  competing  tariff.     The  fact  is,   salt  is   one   of  the   cheapest 

articles  at  the  ports    as  provided  by  law."  articles  produced  in  this  countrjf  to-day  ;  and  it  has 

Now,  to  begin  with,   to  make  such  a  table  of  been  cheapened  by  our  own  producers,  since  the 

any   value   one  must  assume   that,   if   a   duty   is  tariff  law  of  18  61  protected  the  industr:\'. 
levied    on    a  foreign    article   when  imported,   the  The   next  article   I   name  is   calico.      Here   the 

same    duty   is   added   to    the   price   of   competing  charge   is,   two   yards   of   calico    at   10   cents,    20- 

articles   produced   in   this   country.     But   such   is  cents ;  tariff,  9  cents,  or  4  1-2  cents  a  yard.   Again, 


58 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


how  much  cUd  Mr.  Knox  pay  for  that  calico  ? 
Ko  one  can  tell  who  robbed  Farmer  Branob  until 
-after  that  question  is  answered.  Judging  from 
what  Merchant  Knox  charged  for  nails  and  salt, 
he  did  not  pay  more  than  4  cents  a  yard  for  the 
■calico.  ]3ut  calico  is  quoted  afi  low  as  3  cents 
a  yard  at  wholesale.  We  doubt  if  Merchant  Knox 
paid  over  4  1-2  cents  for  it  at  the  outside ;  and 
that  is  just  what  the  duty  would  be.  Does  Mr. 
Breckimidge  claim  that  the  tariff  on  foieign  oahco 
laised  the  price  on  those  two  yards  9  cents,  when 
that  is  all  the  oahco  cost  ?  Can  ther  make 
calico  in  the  Old  World  and  give  it  away  as  a 
paying  business  ? 

Again  twelve  yards  of  ticking  is  charged  for  at 
25  cents  per  yard,  total  $3  ;  tariff  §1  25.  Tlie 
same  question  again :  How  much  did  Merchant 
Knox  pay  for  that  tioldng  ?  How  can  you  teU 
how  much  Farmer  Branch  was  cheated,  or  who 
did  the  cheating,  until  after  you  get  at  the  whole 
transaction  ?  Suppose,  Mr.  Breckinridge,  it  should 
turn  out  that  Merchant  Knox  paid  only  $1  2  5  for 
that  identical  ten-yard  piece  of  ticliing  1  You 
would  hardly  claim,  in  that  case,  that  the  tariff 
robbed  Farmer  Branch  of  §1  25,  will  you  ?  It 
surely  cost  something  to  make  the  goods. 

I  might  take  up  the  entii-e  list,  had  I  time  to 
look  up  the  actual  cost  of  these  articles,  so  as  to  be 
able  to  state  whether  any  money  was  paid  out 
by  Farmer  Bra.nch  on  account  of  the  tariff.  So  fat 
as  I  am  able  to  recall  the  facts,  there  is  not  a 
single  article  named  where  the  American-made 
product  has  not  been  cheapened  by  manufacture  in 
this  country.  I  now  invite  Mr.  Breckinridge  to  an 
honest  examination  of  that  bill  of  goods.  Will  he 
please  take  up  each  item  and  state  what  its  cost 
was  when  bought  from  the  manufacturers  in  the 
United  States.  Then  will  he  please  tell  us  what 
the  same  article  cost  before  we  started  the  indus- 
try in  this  country,  and  how  much  less  it  can  be 
bought  for  abroad  to-day  than  it  can  in  the  United 
States.  When  aU  those  facts  are  given  we  will 
have  some  data  from  which  can  be  ascertained  just 
how  much  the  price  of  that  biU  of  goods  was 
honestly  affected  by  the  tariff.  Let  that  be  fairly 
done.  I  will  notify  Mr.  Brecldnridge  that  the 
facts  will  show  that  Merchant  Knox  could  ha^'e 
sold  that  bin  of  goods  at  a  fair  profit,  and  that 
they  would  have  cost  Farmer  Branch  much  less 
than  he  would  have  }>een  compelled  to  pay  for 
them  had  we  not  made  them  under  the  protective 
system  in  the  United  States. 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  this  biU  of  goods 
does  clearly  prove  that  Merchant  Knox  is  im- 
posing upon  the  Arkansas  farmers.  I  do  not 
wonder  at  his  l>eing  able  to  do  so,  when  a  man  of 
Mr.  Brecldnridge's  position  and  experience  lends 
himself  to  the  claim  that  it  was  the  tariff  which 
raised  the  cost  of  these  goods  to  Farmer  Branch. 

dne  woid  with  Farmer  Branch :  After  this,  be- 
fore you  take  the  word  of  Mr.  Breckinridge,  or 
any  one  else,  as  to  the  tariff  making  your  bill  too 
large,  you  will  do  well  to  find  out  whether  you 
are  charged  75  cents  for  a  bushel  of  salt  which  cost 
Merchant  Knox  not  to  exceed  15  cents,  and  other 
articles  in  the  same  ratio.  Then,  do  you  "go" 
for  Merchant  Knox,  and  not  the  protective  tariff. 
E.  G.  HOER. 


FINANCIAL  ISSUES. 


MORE  MONEY  NOW  THAN  EVER. 


THERE   IS    NO    SUCH    DECREASE    PER    CAPITA   IN 

THE     CIRCULATING-    MEDIUM     AS    IS 

FALSELY    CLAIMED. 

To     tlie     Editor     of     The     Tribune. 

Sir :  Our  Alliance  wishes  Mr.  Horr  to  answer 
through  The  Trlbime  the  following  questions  ; 

Fhst^What  was  the  largest  amount  of  greenback 
money  in  circulation  at  any  one  time,  and  when? 

Second— What,  approximately,  was  the  population  of 
the  United  States  at  that  time! 

Tlurd— How   much   of  that  money   was   withdrawn 
from  circulation  and  destroyed  by  the  G-overnment? 
CHARLES    STODDARD. 

Woodland,  Iowa,  Feb.   24,   1891. 

Previous  to  answering  these  questions  I  have 
taken  the  trouble  to  procure  the  exact  facts,  as 
nearly  as  they  can  be  ascertained,  from  the  offi- 
cials at  Washington,  as  well  as  the  facts  upon 
some  other  questions  which  are  being  put  to  me 
daily,  both  as  I  meet  the  people  and  in  letters. 

Ihe  greatest  amount  of  United  States  notes,  com- 
monly called  "  greenbacks, "  in  existence  at  any 
one  time  cannot  be  exactly  stated  from  any  re- 
port now  in  print.  The  amount  outstanding  July 
1,  1864,  is  probably  within  a  small  fraction  of 
the  highest  amount  ever  in  existence  at  any  one 
time.  The  amount  outstanding  at  that  date  was 
$447,300,203,  but  of  that  amount  there  was 
in  the  United  States  Treasury  $32,184,21^.  That 
left  in  actual  circulation  $415,115,990. 

There  were  in  circulation  at  the  same  time  other 
forms  of  paper  money  amounting  to  $239,347,- 
864,  making  an  aggregate  paper  circulation  of 
$654,463,854. 

July  1,  1864,  there  were  in  existence  of  paper 

money  formerly  issued  in  the  United  States  the 

following  amounts : 

State  bank  notes $179,157,717 

Compound  interest  notes 6,000,000 

Fractional  currency   22,894,877 

Grreenbacks    447,300.203 

National   bank   notes 31,235,270 

Total  : !«68C,64S,067 

Of  this  money  there  were  in  the  United  States 
Treasury  $31,235,270  of  greenbaci?s,  leaving  in 
circulation,  as  before  stated,  $654,463,854.  Tlie 
population  at  that  time  is  estimated  to  have 
been  34.046,000,  which  made  an  average  of 
$19  22  of  paper  money  for  each  man,  woman  and 
child  at  tliat  time  In  the  country.  It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  at  tliat  time  neither  gold  nor 
silver  was  being  used  as  ourreacy  in  the  United 
States.  Both  were  then  at  a  high  premium  and 
were  bought  and  sold  simply  as  commodities. 
Gold  was  used,  though,  in  payment  of  customs 
duties,  and  the  Government  paid  the  interest 
on  its  bonds  with  gold.  There  was  estimated  at 
that  time  to  be  of  gold  coin  in  this  country  the 
sum  of  $203,000,000.  There  was  in  the  Treas- 
ury at  that  date  $18,653,580.  which  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  people  S184,3'IB.420.  There  was 
also  estimated  to  be  $10,000,000  of  silver  m  the 
United  States  at  that  time,  of  which  $625,366 
was  in  the  Treasury  of  the  Government,  leaving 


Bia    ISSLTES    OF    AX    OFF    YEAR. 


59 


of  silver  owned  by  tlie  people  §9,37!. '534.  If 
these  amounts  of  irold  and  sliver  were  Bdded 
to  the  paper  money  tlien  in  circulation,  the  sum 
would  be  increased  to  98'18.184,908,  which  would 
have  lieen  S24  <jl  for  each  ))erson  living  in  the 
United  States  at  that  time. 

There  were  also  outstanding  on  July  1,  1864, 
one  and  two  years'  notes  of  1803  to  the  amoiint 
of  §153,471.450.  Tliese  noteei  were  not  included 
in  the  estimate  of  paper  money  because  they 
were  Interest-ljearing  obUgations  of  the  Govern- 
ment, were  at  that  time  at  a  preiuium.  and  were 
lieing  rapidly  funded  in  5-20  and  10-40  bonds. 
Of  c-ourse  such  obligations  could  in  no  sense  be 
called  currency;  but  if  treated  as  circulating 
medium  and  added  to  the  paper  money  then  In 
circulation  it  would  have  raised  the  amount  of 
paper  money  to  §807,935,304,  which  wOuld  give 
$23  73  for  each  iucll^idu^l  then  livini;  in  tlie 
United  .States.  If  again  to  that  turn  be  added 
the  giild  and  silver  not  in  the  Treasury  at  that 
date,  it  wUl  make  $1 ,001  ,fi56,358,  or  $20  42  per 
capita.  I  repeat  tliat  as  these  notes  were  not 
money,  and  as  gold  and  silver  were  not  then  cir- 
cuh'.ti'u;  as  such,  t'ne  real  amount  of  circulating 
medium  at  that  time  for  each  person  was  the  sum 
iivst  named— §19  22. 

The  amount  of  greenbar-ks  was  decreased  from 
year  to  year  up  to  1873,  and  then  there  was  a 
new  issue  of  S2i;,000.0n0,  so  that  on  the  1st  day 
of  July,  1874,  there  were  outstanding  $382,000,- 
000.  From  that  date  there  was  a  gradual  reduc- 
tion in  the  amount  up  to  May  31,  1878,  when 
the  sum  outstanding  was  $346,681,016.  At  that 
time  the  law  was  approved  which  forbade  the 
retirement  of  any  irore  o!  tiiese  United  States 
notes ;  and  that  is  the  amount  of  greenbacks  noiv 
in  eNJstence. 

From  these  statements  it  is  evident  that  there 
is  now  $100,619,287  less  of  greenbacks  in  ex- 
istence than  were  outstanding  July  1,  1864, 
when   the    lughest    point   was    probably   reached. 

The  total  amount  of  money  outstanding  and  in 
cii'culation  July  1,  1378,  is.  shown  in  detail  by 
tlie  following  table : 

ISSUED. 


United  States.  But  on  July  1,  1878.  there  was 
estimated  to  be  the  .sum  of  $213,200,000  of  gold 
coin  in  this  country.  Of  that  amount  $128,- 
460,203  were  in  the  Treasury  of  the  Govern- 
tuent;  so  that  among  the  people  would  be  left 
984,739,797.  Add  that  amount  to  the  $692,7  64,- 
911  above  and  it  gives  $777,504,708,  which  is 
$10  33  per  capita  of  every  possible  kind  of  money 
in  1878. 

I  will  now  give  the  amount  of  circulating 
medium  in  existence  and  the  amount  in  actual 
use   among   the   people   February    1,    1891. 

ISSUED. 

rjold   colli    $039,384,021 

.'-I liii     1 1 V    I  dollars— Act  of  Fob.  28.  1878.  377.246.880 

sill,:,               r  ilollars— Act  of  July  14,  1800  M. 319.125 

Sni,.,,,,  ,:            li,  r 77,096,840 

c I ,1    s 17.5,781.499 

.SlU.r    ,  .-a.luiajs 307,002.874 

Treasun-  notes— Act  July  14.  1890 23.804,000 

Greonbacks   340.681.010 

National  bank  notes 175,021.739 


St.>nd;irJ  silver  dollars. 

Subsidiarv   coin 

Silver    I- ■itilKat.-s 

Greenbacks    

National   bank  notes... 


io,JU9,079 

05,778  828 

1,402,000 

346.681.010 

324,514.284 

Total $751,705,807 

At  that  date  there  were  in  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  the  following  amounts  of  the  vari- 
ous kinds  of  currency  above  referred  to  : 

IX  THE  TREASURY. 

Standard  silver  dollars $15,059,327 

Subsidiary  coins 6,860,505 

Silver   certiflcates    .- 1,455,520 

Greenbacks  .-.  25,775,121 

National  banknotes 12.7^9,923 

Total    -  - $01,940,896 

Deducting  that  amount  from  the  entire  sum 
issued,  and  It  leaves  $692,704,911 ,  wliich  was  the 
amount  of  money  in  circulation  July  1,  1878. 
Gold  is  not  included  in  this  estimate,  because  it 
was  still  at  a  premium  and  not  in  general  use 
as  money.  The  estimated  population  at  that 
time  was  47,598,000,  which  shows  that  on  that 
date  there  was  in  circulation  as  inonej'  only 
§14  56   for  each   man,   woman   and   child    in   the 


..$2,142,547. 


Total  

IN    THE    TREASURY. 

Gold  coin $229,912,088 

,Sinri,l;i  ,1    -iu.r-    dollars— Act  of  February  28. 

I---      ,    ,i    ,    1  ot  July  14.  1890 302,747,050 

^,:l  -        ,               .1                                19,973.211 

i,o;      ,    rt,  i,    ,i~     ■"■                         19.892.050 

Si.io     .eKilit.a  s'  "              3.218,783 

Trea-ur.v  notes,  act  of  July  14,  1890 3,202.294 

Gr.  enbacUs 0,99.).598 

NaUonal  bank  notes 0.320,151 

Total    $610,791,743 

Deduct  the  amount  in  the  Treasury  from 
$2,142,547,994  and  it  leaves  the  quantity-  of 
mone.y  in  actual  circulation  among  our  people  on 
the  1st  day  of  February,  1891.  at  $1,525,756,251. 
The  census  .just  ta.ken  shows  that  we  have  a 
population  of  63,000,000,  So  that  to-day  there 
is  in  actual  circulation  for  every  man,  woman 
and  child  in  this  country  the  sum  of  $24  80,  as 
against  $14  56  in  1878  and  $19  22  in  1864,  pro- 
vided you  include  as  mone.y  at  those  dates  only 
such  currency  as  was  in  actual  use  as  money  at 
the  time. 

Are  not  these  figures  significant?  Let  me 
state  frankly  that  they  have  been  a  surprise  to 
me.  I  have  heard  the  statement  made  so  fre- 
quently from  day  to  day  that  we  lacked  cir- 
culating medium ;  that  the  volume  of  currency 
had  been  constantly  contracted  for  man.y  years 
past,  that  I  came  to  take  it  for  granted  there 
must  be  some  foundation  for  the  statement.  It 
now  turns  out  that  we  really  have  vastly  more 
money  in  circulation  per  capita  than  in  1864  and 
half  as  much  again  as  in  the  good  times  from 
1878  to  1885.  These  statements  are  from  docu- 
ments in  my  possession  under  the  official  sig- 
nature of  the  acting  Secret.ar.y  of  the  Treasury. 

The  advocates  of  free  coinage  may  dispute  this 
estimate  as  to  1864  and  claim  that  there  was 
really  then  in  use  S29  42  per  capita,  which  I 
Aeny  for  reasons  formerl.y  given,  but  how  can 
they  successfully  refute  the  figures  as  to  1878? 
What  do  they  say  as  to  the  amount  shown  to  be 
in  circulation  then  including  every  possible  kind 
of  money  ?  Prices  were  good  and  times  were 
then  prosperous.  Does  it  not  force  thoughtful 
men  to  look  somewhere  else  for  the  cause  of  busi- 
ness depression  than  to  the  amount  of  circulating 
medium  ?  Is  it  not  passible  that  it  is  a  cheap 
dollar  these  men  are  seeking  much  more  than  the 
number   of   dollars?     When   a   depreciated   dollar 


60 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YE.^. 


is  used  for  the  measure  of  value,  prices  may  seem 
to  be  lush,  but  there  must  always  come  a  day  of 
settlement ;  when  that  day  arrives  the  people  are 
compelled  to  settle  in  good  money.  To  do  that 
always  hurts,  and  sometimes  hurts  terribly.  Men 
who  sell  their  crops,  men  who  sell  theii'  day's 
worlfs,  are  always  injured  by  the  use  of  poor 
monfey.  Good,  honest  dollars  are  always  best  in 
the  long  run  for  the  entire  people  of  any  nation. 
So  lojig  as  our  currency  is  all  convertible  without 
expense  to  tlie  holder  into  the  best  it  will  all  be 
good.  The  moment  you  enact  a  law  that  will 
compel  us  to  take  a  cheaper  dollar  and  pay  for  it 
with  one  more  valuable,  that  moment  the  more 
valuable  dollars  will  begin  to  disappear  from 
among  UB,  and  the  cheaper  money  will  hold 
possession  of  the  entire  field.  I  see  that  to-day 
in  the  Argentine  Eepublio  gold  is  quoted  at  a 
premium  of  219.  Does  any  one  imagine  that 
gold  is  being  circulated  in  that  country  as  money  ? 
Go  there  and  you  will  find  that  the  people  are 
using  as  their  medium  of  exchange  only  the  de- 
preciated paper  money  of  that  nation.  It  may 
be  the  best  they  can  do  under  the  circumstances, 
but  admit  that  it  is,  no,  one  will  claim  that  any 
nation  which  can  avoid  such  a  condition  of  affairs 
should  plunge  into  the  same  vortex,  simply  because 
that  Eepublio  has  been  hurled  into  the  whirl- 
pool. We  have  to-day  as  good  money  as  any 
nation  in  the  world  can  boast  of ;  let  us  all  re- 
solve to  keep  it  good.  E.  G.  HOEE. 


QUESTIONS  AS   TO   SILVEE. 
To     the     Editor     of     Tlie     Tribune. 

Sir:  As  a  patron  of  Tlie  Tribune,  I  submit  a  few 
questions  with  the  expression  of  my  bes.t  wishes  for  its 
Buccess : 

First— If  we  should  adopt  tlie  British  monetary  laws, 
which  regulate  pricss  with  gold  by  excluding  all  bills 
less  than  £5,  and  silver,  too,  except  tlie  necessary 
smaU  change,  would  not  our  prices  naturally  fall 
about  as  low  as  theirs,  and  so  make  Protection  use- 
less' 

Second— Or,  if  they  should  adopt  our  monetary  laws, 
and  so  ply  tlieir  trade  with  all  the  small  bills  and 
cheap  silver  coins  they  could  press  into  circulaiiion, 
would  not  their  prices  naturally  rise  about  as  liigli 
as  ours,  and  so  make  Protection  useless  ? 

Third- But  11  we  inflate  our  rrrculation  and  prices 
above  other  nations,  will  not  every  unprotected  ad- 
vance in  our  prices  insiu'e  to  the  advantage  of  foreign 
trade,  and  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  home  trade, 
which  would  be  compelled  to  procure  labor  and  ma- 
terials at  the  higher  prices  1 

Fourth— Since  prices  depend  upon  the  circulation, 
and  an  advance  in  prices  Inures  to  the  advantage  of 
foreign  trade  and  the  disadvantage  of  the  home  trade, 
are  we  not  rationally  bound  to  prevent  a  rise  in  price 
or  protect  it  from  foreign  spoliation  by  an  adequate 
tariff ! 

Fifth- In  the  past  many  lines  of  trade  may  have 
sutfered  severely  by  stress  of  foreign  trade,  and  prices 
have  been  too  low  to  comport  with  prices  in  other 
lines ;  but  does  the  "McKlnley  bill"  now  afford  just 
and  ade<iuate  protection  ?  Would  It  not  become  totally 
Inadequate  under  a  "  free  coinage"  of  cheap  silver 
dollais  ? 

Sixth— Is  it  presumable  that  they  who  prate  about 
the  "  higli  prices  "  protected,  though  not  engendered, 
by  the  McKinley  bill    really  want  lower  prices  In  all 


lines  of  business ;  and  think  the  economic  way  to 
reduce  prices  cannot  be  found  in  our  money,  but  in 
our  tariff?  J    NORTON. 

Farmer  Village,  Jan.  16,  1801. 

In  addition  to  these  questions,  we  have  received 
two  long  letters  from  Mr.  Norton  which  throw 
light  on  his  views,  but  our  lack  of  space  prevent* 
their  publication  in  full. 

The  foregoing  questions,  while  constantly  ap- 
plied by  Mr.  Norton  to  the  tariff,  reallj'  involve 
tlie  whole  controversy  as  to  money,  currency, 
banking,  promissory  notes,  the  issuing  of  circulat- 
ing bills,  etc.,  etc.  I  have  never  claimed  to  be  an 
expert  on  tliese  matters,  though  I  have  some  well- 
defined  "  notions,"  such  as  a  man  must  have  formed 
who  has  been  hearing  s-uch  questions  discussed 
constantly  for  twenty  years  past. 

In  answer  to  the  first  question,  I  will  state 
that,  as  I  understand  it,  we  are  regulating  prices 
with  a  gold  standard  right  now  in  this  country. 
All  the  various  kinds  of  money  used  in  the  United 
States  to-day  can  be  converted  into  gold  by  any 
holder  of  them  with  very  little  effort,  and  at  no 
expense  for  exchange.  What  the  silver  men  com- 
plain about  is  that  we  are  a  gold-standard  nation. 
I  cannot  see  how  our  money  is  inflated  so  long 
as  we  keep  it  aU  redeemable  in  or  convertible  into 
gold.  If  the  gold  dollar  is  not  the  measure  of 
value  in  this  country  to-day,  pray  what  is  ? 
When  we  buy  an  ounce  of  silver  or  a  bushel  of 
wheat,  do  we  not  pay  for  it  in  precisely  t)ie  same 
money  that  England  does  ?  What  do  we  buy  in 
the  United  States  to-day  which  we  do  not  pay  for 
in  gold  or  its  equivalent?  I  do  not  mean  that 
our  present  silver  dollar  is  the  equivalent  of  our 
gold  dollar  in  value  intrinsically,  but  that  the 
Government  owns  the  silver  to  make  up  the 
difference,  and  so  long  as  it  remains  convertible 
into  gold    the  gold  standard  will  stand. 

The  second  question  is  the  same  in  substance 
as  the  first.  In  fact,  it  is  the  same  question 
turned  around.  I  cannot  see  how  the  size  of  the 
bills  has  any  bearing  on  the  question  of  inflation. 
Suppose  the  Bank  of  England  issued  18,000,000 
notes  five  pounds  sterling  each,  or  90,000,000 
notes  one  pound  sterling  each,  or  360,000,000 
notes  of  five  shillings  each,  would  there  be  any 
more  inflation  in  the  one  issue  than  in  the  other  ? 
The  amount  outstanding  is  the  same  in  each  case. 
Tliere  may  be  some  quality  about  a  small  bill  that, 
does  not  belong  to  a  large  one.  If  so,  it  is  beyond 
my  knowledge.  It  cannot  be  that  Mr.  Norton 
uses  the  tei-m  "inflated"  in  the  sense  of  tlie  word 
"depreciated."  I  can  readily  see  how  a  depre- 
ciated CM-rency  always  seems  to  raiie  prices,  and 
have  no  doubt  that  a  resort  to  the  free  coinage  of 
silver  would  lead  to  the  troubles  he  fears  as  to  an 
inflated  currency,  but  only  because  it  would  end 
in  placing  gold  at  a  premium,  and  we  would  be 
doing  business  with  irredeemable  money.  In 
that  ease  the  gold  dollar  vrould  cease  to  be  the 
unit  of  value  and  the  cheaper  silver  dollar  would 
liecome  the  standard  in  this  country ;  and  we 
would  no  longer  be  able  to  convert  our  currency,, 
all  of  it,  into  gold,  except  by  paying  the  difference 
between  the  silver  dollar  and  the  gold  o:ie. 

In  answer  to  the  third   question,  I  would  say 


BIG    ISSL'ES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


61 


that  a  resort  to  a  depreciated  curreacy  would 
seem  to  raise  prices  and  would  result  in  an  ad- 
vantaKO  to  foreign  traders. 

The  fourtli  question  assumes  that  prices  depend 
on  the  amount  of  circulating  medium,  which  I 
doubt,  so  long  as  jou  keep  all  tlie  money  at  a 
gold  standard.  Ot  course  the  moment  you  do 
business  with  a  depreciated  currency  then  there 
are  at  once  two  prices  Tor  articles,  the  one  in  the 
cheap  money,  the  other  in  the  money  of  the  busi- 
ness world. 

In  reply  to  the  remainder  ot  the  questions,  I  will 
sj'.y  tliat  the  enactment  of  a  silver  bill  such  as 
has  just  passed  tlie  Senate  will,  in  my  judgment, 
injure  the  business  of  the  country,  and  will,  in 
many  instances,  deprive  the  McKinley  bill  of  its 
protective  features,  because  it  will  permit  the 
payment  of  duties  in  the  cheap  money.  During 
our  era  ot  inflated,  irredeemable  money,  this 
trouble  was  avoided  because  duties  were  all  made 
payable  in  gold.  That  increaed  inste.id  of  weak- 
ened tlie  protection  of  tlie  Morrill  bill. 

These  answers  may  seem  very  inadequate  to 
Mr.  Norton,  lie  and  I  will  agree,  no  doubt,  that 
our  country  will  suffer  from  a  plunge  into  the 
use  of  cheap,  depreciated  money.  It  will  hurt  in 
more  ways  than  one.  It  will  also  weaken  the 
protection  now  given  to  our  own  industries  by 
our  tariff  laws.  Just  what  should  )je  done  with 
the  currency  question  is  a  hard  problem  to  solve. 
I  do  not  pretend  to  be  fully  satisfied  on  all  points. 
The  history  of  past  eft'orts  in  that  direction  con- 
vinces me  beyond  all  doubt  that  a  resort  to  the 
use  of  irredeemable,  cheap  money  will  most  surely 
not  better  the  situation.  It  must  lead  to  un- 
healthy speculation  and  to  final  disaster. 

No  nation  can  for  any  length  of  time  do  busi- 
ness up  in  a  balloon.  Jt  is  sure  to  come  down  1,0 
hard  pan  in  time:  and  the  fall  usually  hurts. 
Still,  this  mone.y  question  is  so  far-reaching  in  its 
results,  so  complicated  in  its  workings,  that  my 
conclusions  may  be  wide  of  the  mark.  These 
hints  are  thrown  out  with  no  idea  of  placing  this 
subject  beyond  all  doubt.  It  may  be  all  clear  to 
Mr.  Norton.     It  is  not  to  me— (R.  G.  H. 


HOW  DO  NATIONS  PAY  THEIR  DEBTS  WHEN 

THE    BALANCE    OF    TRADE    IS 

AGAINST  THEM? 

THE  SILVER  QUESTION  IN  THE  MINDS  OP  EVERT 
ONE. 

To     the     Editor     ol     The     Tribune. 

Sir :  Please  answer  tbe  following  questions  : 

First— Are  silver  certificates  used  in  tra4e  with 
countries  that  have  a  silver  basis,  or  is  silver  bullion 
ever  used? 

Second— In  our  trade  with  Brazil,  where  the  haJance 
Is  against  us,  what  part,  if  any,  is  paid  in  silver? 

Third— With  the  balance  of  trade  in  our  favor  and 
free  coinage  of  sliver,  could  there  be  a  scarcity  of  gold 
in  tills  ooimtry  except  by  speculation? 

Fourth— If  sUver  was  not  used  in  any  couutry  as 
a  circulating  medium,  would  not  its  value  largely 
depreciate  ? 

Fifth- Is  not  over  two-fiftlis  of  the  world's  produc- 
tion of  sUver  mined  in  the  t'nited  States  ? 

Sixth— With  iron  and  the  metals  generally  protected 


should  silver  be  debased?      ROBERT  CARTWRIGHT. 

.Sidney,  N.  Y.,  Feb.  23,  1891. 

The  silver  certificates  ot  the  United  States 
are  not  used  as  money  in  any  nation  e.\cept  our 
own.  Very  few  of  them  are  ever  seen  In  anj' 
foreign  couutry. 

In  our  trade  with  all  foreign  nations,  if  silver 
Is  used  in  payment  of  a  balance,  it  is  always 
used  as  bullion  ;  never  as  anything  else.  It  makes 
no  difTerence  whether  the  nation  is  a  silver 
standard  or  a  gold  standard  nation,  silver  sent 
there  would  be  credited  up  by  weight  without 
regard  to  its  coin  value  in  the  country  where  it 
came  from.  For  that  matter  the  same  is  also 
true  of  gold.  It  is  the  amount  ot  pure  gold  in 
a  Sovereign  that  fixes  its  value  in  Germany  or 
France  or  the  United  States.  The  stamp  of  the 
Government  of  Great  Britain  does  not  add  one 
particle  of  value  tx)  the  coin. 

In  answer  to  your  second  question,  I  will  say 
that  no  one  can  tell  how  much  or  how  Uttle  silver 
is  used  in  our  settleirient  with  Brazil.  Our  bal- 
ances are  so  seldom  settled  by  the  shipment  of 
coin  of  any  kind  that  there  arc  no  data  upon 
which  to  make  a  calculation.  All  such  accounts 
are  usually  settled  by  some  American  bank  giving 
a  draft  on  some  bank  in  London.  That  draft  is 
taken  by  the  Brazilian  merchant  to  a  bank  In 
Brazil  which  also  has  an  account  in  London,  and 
the  holder  of  the  draft  gets  credit  for  it  in  Brazil 
or  gets  the  cash,  as  juay  be.  If  the  draft  calls 
for  gold,  and  there  is  a  difference  in  the  value 
of  gold  and  the  currency  of  the  country,  the 
bank  adjusts  that  difference  and  pays  the  mer- 
chant in  such  currency  as  much  as  his  gold  draft 
is  worth.  The  American  merchant  has  calculated 
upon  the  same  basis  and  the  amount  of  the  draft 
sent  is  only  the  amount  required  after  taking  into 
account  the  kind  of  money  in  which  his  biU 
must  be  paid.  The  banks  adjust  these  matters 
and  most  of  the  shipments  of  gold  and  silver 
from  one.  country  to  another  are  made  between 
the  banks  of  tlie  world. 

In  reply  to  your  third  question,  I  will  say- 
that  if  money  were  only  sent  from  one  country 
to  another  in  payment  for  food  or  manufactured 
goods,  there  woufd  be  little  danger  of  getting 
any  kind  of  money  out  of  a  country  that  sent 
more  of  these  articles  abroad  than  it  brought 
back.  But  if  you  pass  a  law  that  permits  men 
owning  silver  to  bring  it  here,  and  for  what 
they  can  get  only  80  cents  at  home,  compel 
our  mints  to  pay  them  100  cents,  how  long 
could  you  keep  the  gold  in  this  country,  which 
would  be  required  to  pay  for  the  silver  which 
such  profits  would  send  to  this  country?  If  by 
the  passage  of  such  a  law  the  value  of  the  silver 
dollar  would  at  ance  advance  so  as  to  be  equal 
to  that  of  the  gold  dollar  all  over  the  world, 
then  the  calamity  would  not  follow.  Does  any 
sane  man  think  that  such  would  be  the  case? 
The  moment  our  laws  permit  the  people  of  other 
nations  to  pay  us  with  cheap  money  and  compel 
us  to  pay  them  with  money  that  is  more  valu- 
able, the  question  as  to  the  balance  of  trade  in 
ordinai-y  commodities  wiU  have  little  to  do  with 
the  scarcity  of  the  good  money  that  vsill  foUow 


62 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


in  tMs  country.  As  a  rule,  water  runs  down  liill 
in  tlds  world. 

If  silver  was  not  used  in  any  country  as  a 
circulating  medium  its  value  would  depreciate 
immensely.  You  might  as  well  ask  if  the  human 
race  should  stop  eating  potatoes  would  Jiot  that 
lower  the  price  of  potatoes?  It  would  nearly 
destroy  their  production.  Is  there  any  natioji 
in  the  world  that  dues  not  use  silver  as  money  ? 
Is  there  any  nation  that  proposes  to  stop  its 
use  as  money  ?  I  have  never  loiown  an  instance 
where  silver  was  driven  out  of  circulation,  except 
in  countries  that  were  compelled  to  resort  to 
depreciated  paper  money.  Cheap  paper  money 
will  stop  the  use  of  silver  in  any  country.  I  well 
remember  ten  years  of  my  life  during  which  I 
did  not  see  a  single  silver  dollar,  and  tliat,  too, 
before  silver  had  been  demonetized  bj'  law. 

In  repljf  to  your  fifth  question  I  will  say  that 
you  name  the  amount  of  sEver  raised  in  the 
United  States  as  compared  with  the  rest  of  the 
world  about  as  it  is  stated  by  men  who  are 
giving  the  subject  great  attention.  It  does  not 
seem  to  me  possible  that  we  produce  almost  as 
much  silver  as  does  the  balance  of  the  world ; 
but  it  has  been  recently  estimated  at  about  two- 
fifths  of  the  entire  output.  It  is,  of  course,  a 
matter  somewhat  of  guess  work. 

"With  iron  and  other  metals  protected  should 
silver  be  debased?"  Of  course  it  should  not. 
Silver  should  be  treated  fairly,  whether  the  other 
metals  are  misused  or  not.  Do  you  know  of  any 
people  who  are  attempting  to  fix  the  price  of  iron 
by  statute  ?  Why  debase  iron,  or  steel,  or  tin,  or 
lead,  or  zinc,  or  copper?  If  the  price  of  an 
article  can  be  fixed  by  law,  why  not  arrange  a 
schedule  of  fair  prices  for  everything,  and  so 
hereafter  always  know  just  what  each  article  wiU 
bring?  It  would  be  attended  with  some  diffi- 
culties, perhaps,  but  it  certainly  sounds  well. 
The  blessings  that  would  follow  such  an  arrange- 
ment, if  it  worked,  seem  to  me  simply  immense. 
Would  it  work  ?  I  fear  not.  There  are  so  many 
things  in  this  world  that  seem  desirable  that  do 
not  come  through  legislation.  Silver  is  not  de- 
based in  this  country  now.  It  is  performing  its 
own  good  work.  We  are  utihzing  nearly,  or 
quite,  the  entii-e  product  from  our  own  mines 
now.  Why  should  we  attempt  to  do  more  than 
that?  Why  not  go  slow,  and  see  how  the  new 
law  works?  Experiments  are  often  educational, 
but  they  are  sometimes  expensive. -(R.  G.  Horr. 


•      A  STEING  OF  QUESTIONS  ON  SILVEE. 

AN    BBTORT   TO    EXPLAIN    A    FEW    FOINTS    UPON 
WHICH     A     GOOD     MANY     FAP-MBRS 
AKE    PERPLEXED. 
To    the    Editor    of    The    Tribune. 

Sir ;  Will  you  please  answer  the  following  questions : 

1.  When  was  the  silver  dollar  deprived  of  Its  legal- 
tender  quality  1 

2.  Would  the  demonetization  of  silver  tend  to  re- 
duce or  increase  its  value  as  a  commodity! 

3.  If  as  a  commodity,  during  a  period  of  large  pro- 
duction, sliver  has  depreciated  only  ^8.6  per  cent, 
measured  by  a  gold  standard,  how  much  inflation 
of  the  circulating  medium  wiU  free  coinage  produce? 

4.  Did  the  demonetization  of  silver  increase  the  value 
of  gold  as  compared  with  the  value  of  all  other  com- 
modities 1 

5.  If  so;  did  It  not  disturb  contracts  in  favor  of  the 
creditor? 

6.  With  United  States  bonds  at  25  per  cent  premium, 
Is  it  any  longer  necessary  to  strengthen  the  pubUc 
credit  by  the  contmued  demonetization  of  silver? 

7.  WiU  restoring  to  silver  the  legal  qualities  it 
once  had  make  a  greater  difference  between  the 
value  of  the  sUver  and  gold  coin    than  now  exists? 


8.  Would  it  be  any  more  than  just  to  make  the 
silver  dollar  the  laborer  receives  for  his  day's  work 
a  lull  legal  tender  and  equal  in  purchasing  power 
to  the  gold  dollar  of  the  bondholder? 

9.  You  state  that  free  coinage  of  silver  "  wiU  in  many 
instances  deprive  tlie  McKinley  biU  of  its  protective 
features."  Silver  certificates  are  now  received  in  pay- 
ment of  duties.  Would  payment  in  silver  be  any 
less  protection  than  payment  in  that  which  is  ex- 
changeable for  silver?  W.   C.  WHITEHEAD. 

Patashala,  Ohio,  Jan.  30,  1891. 

In  answer  to  our  correspondent,  I  will  say 
that  the  act  which  he  refers  to  as  demonetizing 
silver  was  passed  in  1873.  At  that  time  neither 
gold  nor  silver  was  in  circulation  in  the  United 
States  as  currency.  That  bill  simply  made  the 
gold  dollar  our  standard  of  value  and  deprived 
the  sUver  dollar  of  that  place.  That  is  usually 
called  the  "  demonetizing "  of  silver,  but  it  did  not 
"  demonetize "  that  metal.  Silver  and  gold  were 
used  as  money,  long  before  any  Government  passed 
laws  as  to  their  use.  Their  value  as  money  in 
the  markets  of  the  world  does  not  come  from 
legislation,  but  is  owing  to  their  being  better 
adapted  to  that  purpose  than  any  other  product 
of  labor  known  to  the  civilized  world.  At  the 
time  the  bill  of  1873  became  a  law  it  did  not 
affect  the  price  of  either  gold  or  silver  one  iota, 
although  it  may  have  had  some  effect  on  the  price 
of  sUver  since  tlie  resumption  of  specie  payments. 

Your  second  question  is  based  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  silver  is  now  used  as  money,  which  is 
true.  Any  new  use  to  which  you  put  any  article 
which  is  the  product  of  labor  increases  the  de- 
mand for  that  article  and  tends  to  increase  its 
value.  My  opinion  is  that  no  product  of  labpj 
should  ever  be  given  any  value,  which  it  does 
not  possess  as  a  commodity.  The  use  of  gold  and 
silver  as  money  could  not  be  except  for  their 
recognized  value  as  products  of  human  labor. 
The  use  of  each  as  money  adds  to  that  value,  be- 
cause it  adds  an  extra  use  to  the  article ;  but 
the  value  of  the  commodity  must  also  keep 
pace  with  the  value  as  money. 

Your  thirl  question  cannot  be  answered,  be- 
cause you  do' not  give  terms  enough  on  which 
to  base  a  mathematical  calculation.  A  moment's 
thought  will  show  any  one  that  free  coinage  in- 
volves the  silver  product  of  the  world.  So  there 
is  no  basis  for  any  calculation  that  can  be 
expressed  in  any  per  cent  statement.  If  you 
coined  a  silver  dollar  which  was  of  the  same 
value  as  the  gold  one,  there  would  be  little 
effect  from  the  numbers  coined.  But  suppose 
you  should  coin  a  sUver  dollar  of  less  intrinsio 
value  than  the  gold  one.  Then,  if  the  Govern- 
ment coining  such  dollars  should  make  them  the 
standard  of  value  in  that  country,  they  would 
of  course  drive  out  of  circulation  the  more  valu- 
able dollars,  because  persons  paying  out  money 
wUl  always  use  the  cheap  money  in  making  pay- 
ments. Gold  might  still  be  a  legal-tender;  but 
no  one  would  make  a  tender  of  gold,  when  he 
could  sell  his  gold  and  get  more  dollars  (sUver) 
with  it  which  would  answer  the  same  purpose. 
If  by  any  legal  enactment  you  could  make 
412  1-2  grains  of  sUver  actually  of  the  same  value 
as  25  8-10  grains  of  gold,  then  "free  coinage" 
would   lose   all   its   terrors.     Not   believing   that 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    \i:aR. 


03 


such  a  feat  is  witliiii  the  reach  of  human  possi- 
bUities,  I  fear  the  results  of  making  our  Nation  a 
silver  standard  nation.  We  are  now  using  both 
metals  as  currency,  hut  with  a  j,'old  standard ; 
and  the  people,  who  are  the  Government  in  tliis 
country,  always  have  in  the  possession  of  the 
Government  the  dill'crence  between  the  value 
of  the  sUver  and  the  gold  dollars  coined.  Free 
coinage,  which  puts  that  difl'erence  into  the 
pockets  of  the  holders  of  silver,  would  no  doubt 
please  them ;  but,  would  it  not  be  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  people  ? 

My  answer  to  your  fourth  question  is :  that  the 
demonetizing  of  silver  in  this  country  had  little 
effect  on  the  price  of  gold.  Several  other  nations 
also  demonetized  silver.  The  united  action  of 
all  of  them  may  have  appreciated  the  value  ot 
gold  somewhat.  But  do  not  forget  this,  that 
all  these  nations  changed  from  the  silver  stand- 
ard because  silver  itself  had  depreciated  in  value 
before  it  was  demonetized.  If  all  the  great 
Powers  of  the  world  should  combine  and  agree 
on  a  ratio  between  gold  and  silver,  they  might 
keep  the  two  metals  at  pretty  nearly  that  ratio, 
provided  they  fixed  the  value  of  each  metal  at 
near  the  cost  of  production ;  but  all  of  them  to- 
gether could  not  prevent  the  fluctuations  in 
either  metal  which  come  from  causes  higher  and 
more  powerful  than  all  legal  enactments. 

Fifth.  Of  course,  if  any  legislative  enactment 
could  raise  the  standard  of  value,  such  change 
in  value  would  benefit  the  creditor  class  and 
would  injure  those  who  owe  money  and  must  pay 
in  something  more  valuable  tlian  it  was  wlieu 
the  debt  was  contracted.  It  also  follows  that  if 
they  are  isermitted  to  pay  in  a  less  valuable  dol- 
lar than  trie  one  m  legal  use  when  the  debt  was 
contracted  such  a  law  would  becefit  the  debtor 
and  wrong  the  men  Avho  loaned  the  money. 

In  answer  to  your  sixth  question,  I  will  say 
that  there  is  now  no  need  of  further  legislation 
to  strengthen  the  public  ci-edit.  It  is  as  strong 
as  it  call  be  now.  That,  however,  does  not  im- 
ply that  it  would  be  right  to  do  anytlung  to 
weaken  or  impair  that  credit.  If  our  credit 
is  liigh,  so  high  that  there  is  none  betTtcr  on  the 
face  of  the  globe,  that  fact  can  hardly  be  given 
as  a  reason  for  doing  nny  foolish  thing.  It  is  bet- 
ter to  examine  carefully  and  learn,  if  possible,  the 
wisdom  ot  the  action  which  has  given  us  this 
proud  position,  and  then  profit  by  the  lesson. 

In  reply  to  your  seventh  question,  I  would 
say  that  if  j'ou  mean  the  making  of  412  1-2  grains 
of  silver  our  standard  of  value,  I  do  not  think 
that  making  that  dollar  a  legal  tender  will  change 
the  relative  value  of  the  two  metals  for  any 
great  length  of  time  to  any  great  extent.  It 
would  probably  increase  the  value  of  silver  a  few 
points  for  a  time.  In  the  end,  the  value  of  each 
metal  v/ould  be  determined  by  weight  and  purity 
and  not  by  legislation. 

In  answer  to  your  eighth  question,  let  me  say 
that  the  laborer  should  always  be  paid  in  the 
best  money  there  is  in  any  country.  To-day  the 
silver  dollar  of  the  workingman  is  precisely  as 
valuable  as  the  gold  dollar  of  the  bondholder. 
They  are  interchangeable,  the  one  for  the  other, 
without  expense  to  the  holder.     Our  silver  dollars 


are  now,  for  all  practical  purposes,  a  legal  tender 
for  all  debts.  .^.U  the  money  circulating  in  the 
United  States  lo-day  is  of  equal  value,  not  because 
all  of  it  is  a  legal  lender,  for  it  is  not,  but  be- 
cause it  is  all  readily  convertible  the  one  into 
the  other  at  the  option  ot  the  holder.  It  matters 
not  what  money  you  have.  If,  with  certainty,  you 
can  convert  it  into  the  best,  it  becomes  at  once 
as  pood  as  the  best.  But  if  you  change  the  lavv 
so  that  you  cannot  get  the  best,  but  permit  all 
payments  to  be  made  in  the  cheapest,  then  you  will 
of  necessity  drive  out  of  use  the  better  money, 
and  golfl  will  De  bought  and  sold  as  a  commodity, 
to  be   [laid  for  with  the  cheap  money. 

In  your  ninth  question,  you  seem  to  think  that 
because  silver  certificates  are  now  used  to  pay 
duties  this  somehow  militates  aLjaiiist  my  formei- 
st;itement  tliat  free  coinage  would  enable  impor- 
ters to  pay  their  duties  in  cheap  money.  The 
silver  certificates  are  now  as  good  as  gold.  The 
Uovernment  paid  gold  price  for  the  silver,  and 
you  cau  get  gold  for  the  dollars  by  stepping  into- 
any  bank  in  the  country.  But  we  are  now  U%'iug 
under  a  gold  standard.  Your  question  imphes 
that  the  Government  can  make  412  1-2  graius  of 
silver  worlli  as  mu?h  as  25  8-10  grains  of  gold  by 
the  Free  Coinage  bill.  That  I  do  not  believe. 
If  they  can.  why  not  make  200  grains  do  the  busi- 
ness ?  I  admit  that  the  lawmaking  power  can 
change  the  standard  of  value.  It  could  make  a 
dollar  consist  ot  2U0  grains  of  silver;  but  I  deny 
the  power  of  any  Government  to  make  a  silver 
dollar  with  only  200  grains  of  silver  in  it  worth 
as  much  as  one  with  412  1-2  grains.  The  Gov- 
ernment might  compel  the  creditors  of  the  coun- 
try to  take  such  small  dollars  and  cancel  its  ob- 
ligations ;  but  that  would  not  change  the  fact 
that  one  dollar  is  cheaper  than  the  other  and 
actually  worth  less.  Indeed,  your  last  question 
sliows  that  you  understand  this  principle.  Of 
course,  as  1  have  already  stated,  as  long  as  silver 
and  gold  dollars  are  exchangeable  the  one  for  the 
other,  it  makes  no  dirterence  which  ones  are  used. 
But,  do  you  not  see  that  involves  the  assumptioti 
that  they  will  be  exchangeable  the  one  for  the 
other  when  you  have  made  412  1-2  grains  of  sil- 
ver our  standard  of  value  for  a  dollar  ?  If  they 
will  stUl  remain  interchangeable  after  such  a 
change  of  standard,  then  you  are  right.  My  fear 
IS  inai  silvi-r  dollars  would  then  be  much  cheaper 
tVinn  L'old  ones,  and  the  world  would  know  that 
fact  and  would  inst-antly  pay  us  entirely  in  silver 
ana  compel  us  to  pay  them  in  gold,  which  could 
work  nothing  except  ruin  to  our  Xatio'n  in  the 
end.  We  need  both  gold  and  silver  as  the  basis  of 
circulation  in  this  country.  We  neea,  in  my  judg- 
ment, the  entire  output  ot  our  own  mines  for  that 
purpose.  That  end  can  be  easily  reached  without 
changing  our  standard  of  value,  and  without  giv- 
ing the  rest  of  the  world  power  to  buy  from  ub 
with  cheap  money  and  compel  us  to  pay  them  in 
the  money  of  the  world  (which  is  and  always  has 
been  so  much  metal,  either  gold  or  silver,  at  a 
price  which  depends  entirely  upon  weight  and 
purity,  amd  not  in  the  least  upon  its  legal-tender 
value  in  any  country). 

This  whole  question  turns  on  the  power  of  gov- 
ernment to  create  value.  It  can  be  decided 
perhaps  only  by  experiment.  Good  men  differ 
with  me  as  to  what  the  result  would  be.  I  do 
not  claim  that  the  question  is  free  from  doubt. 
I  have  answered  theee  questions  in  view  of  the 
knowledge  I  now  possess.  If  I  am  wrong,  then 
experience  with  free  silver  may  show  me  my 
error.  If  I  am  right,  then  the  free-silver  experi- 
ment will  have  been  a  costly  one,  but  tne  exjieri- 
ence  will  be  none  the  less  instructive.  I  believe 
that  silver  is  cheaper  to-day  than  it  was  a  few 
years  ago  for  the  same  reason  that  wheat  is,  and 
that  no  legislation  can  permanently  fix  the  price 
of  either.  The  price  of  each  will  always  be  goT- 
erned  by  the  cost  of  production  alid  the  great  law 
of  supply  and  demand.  E.  G.  HOEE. 


BIG    ISSUES    or    AN    OFF    YEAU. 


ACHALLENGEONTHE  TAEIFF 


MR.    HORR    PAYS   HIS    GOMPLIMENTS   TO   A 
RIGHT  HONORABLE  K.  C.  B. 


A    SPEECH   AT  LEEDS   EFFECTIVELY   ANSWERED. 

A  Demooratlo  ex-member  of  Congress,  who  is 
also  an  ardent  free-trader,  has  sent  me  a  speech 
delivered  by  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  LyoJi  Playfair, 
K.  C.  B.,  M.  P.,  ill  Ijeeds,  England,  November 
13,  1890.  This  American  friend  has  taken  pains 
to  mark  many  passages  in  this  -wonderful  pro- 
duction, showing  his  glee,  as  is  usual  with  all 
free-traders,  over  everything  "  English,  you 
know" ;  and  he  has  suggested  that  I  try  my  pen 
in  reply,  if,  indeed,  a.ny  reply  is  deemed  possible. 

Bear  in  mind  that  the  speech  of  Sii'  Lyon  Play- 
fair  was  made  to  the  manufacturers  of  the  great 
manufacturing  town  of  Leeds,  and  is  devoted  en- 
tirely to  a  discussion  of  the  itcKinley  bill.  The 
speaker  informed  his  audience  that  he  was  in 
America  during  the  passage  of  the  bill  and  gave 
great  study  to  the  measure.  Tlicre  can  be  little 
doubt  that  his  statement  on  that  point  is  true ; 
for,  after  reading  the  speech  with  care,  I  fail 
to  find  in  it  a  single  argument  (indeed,  hardly 
a  single  utteranoel  which  was  not  repeated  over 
ajid  over  a"ga3n  by  the  free-trade  opponents  of  that 
bUl  during  the  debate  in  Congress:  So  marked 
is  this  similarity  that  I  am  left  in  a  painful  per- 
plexity as  to  whether  this  member  of  the  British 
Parliament  furnished  the  ammunition  for  our 
free-trade  memljers  of  Congress,  or  whether,  at 
Leeds,  he  supplied  his  English  audience  with  ii 
mere  repetition  of  what  he  had  heard  from  their 
tiied-a.nd-true  friends  here  in  America. 

One  thing  certainly  can  be  truthfully  said  of 
the  speech.  It  does  not  contain  a  single  new 
idea  or  euggestion ;  and,  while  as  an  argument  it 
is  somewhat  Ijetter  than  Mr.  Mills  or  Mr.  Springer 
can  make,  it  is  not  as  well  done  as  one  would  ex- 
pect from  Mr.  Carlisle.  It  is  somewhat  significant, 
however,  in  this  regard.  It  does  show  that  pre- 
cisely the  same  nonsense  which  is  dealt  out  by 
our  free-trade  speakers  in  this  country  is  fitted 
to  please  the  men  who  manufacture  goods  in 
England.  Mr.  Playfair  did  not  feel  called  upon 
"to  change  the  dot  of  an  i  or  the  cross  of  a  t." 

He  was  kind  enough  to  admit  in  the  outset 
that  Mr.  McKinley  is  an  honest  man.  He  then 
adds  that  Mr.  McKinley  "  thoroughly  believes  that 
a  wall  of  protection  built  around  his  country  is 
needful  for  the  prosperity  of  his  Nation,  and  he 
has  erected  this  wall  in  as  good  faith  as  the 
Chinese  made  their  great  wall  as  a  defence  from 
foreign  foes."  This  Chinese  wall  illustration  is 
growing  extremely  stale  on  this  side  of  the  water, 
though  it  may  be  fresh  at  Leeds.  Taking  into 
account  the  enormous  increase  of  the  exports  and 
imports  of  the  United  States  since  the  tariff  law 
of  1861,  when  a  man  over  here  begins  to  talk 
about  a  "  Chinese  wall"  he  becomes  a  laughing- 
stock for  well-informed  men ;  there  are  those  who 
are  so  laolang  in  dignity  or  diction  that  they 
would  call  such  a  statement  "  mere  rot." 

This  English  free-trader  makes  another  state- 
ment which  has  been  refuted  so  many  times  as 


also  to  be  out  of  date.  Hear  him  :  "  Never  during 
the  history  of  the  United  States  was  there  so 
much  prosperity  as  during  the  low  tariffs  from 
184;  to  18<i(.'."  A  man  must  have  lived  in  this 
country  and  known  about  1857  to  understand 
what  an  unmitigated  falsehood  that  is.  I  lived 
and  labored  in  the  United  States  during  all  those 
years,  and  no  man  need  ask  me  to  believe  such 
nonsense. 

His  next  utterance  is  worse  yet:  "There  is  no 
intimate  connection  between  the  tariff  and  wages. 
As  a  whole,  wages  have  gone  down  under  the 
new  tari*}',  and  there  seems  to  be  no  tendency  to 
rise."  Just  think  of  it.  The  new  tariff  law  went 
into  effect  October  6,  and  this  wonderful  man  is 
making  this  wonderful  speech  November  13— in 
less  than  forty  days— and  telling  his  audience  how 
the  law  has  "  on  the  whole,  lowered  wages"  !  How 
he  must  have  presumed  on  the  ignorance  or  gul- 
libility of  his  hearers !  What  data  could  he  have 
had  on  which  to  make  that  announcement  ?  None 
in  the  world.  It  takes  more  than  six  weelcs  to 
learn  what  has  happened  to  wages  "  as  a  whole" 
in  this  large  country  of  ours.  But  I  notice  that 
in  order  to  prove  both  these  propositions— the  one 
as  to  the  growth  of  our  country  and  the  one  as  to 
wages— he  launches  off  into  the  unlimited  field 
of  "  per  cents."  In  the  hands  of  an  earnest,  sin- 
cere and  well-informed  statistician,  who  knows 
to  what  percentages  properly  apply  ajid  to  what 
they  properly  do  not,  this  method  of  comparison 
has  its  memts.  On  the  other  hand,  the  statement 
of  a  per  centum  loss  or  gain  may  mean  absolutely 
nothing.  It  is  sometimes  a  term  used  to  hide 
the  actual  condition  of  affairs.  The  trouble  is 
that  it  gives  no  information  as  to  the  surrounding 
circumstances.  If  the  stajting-point  is  not  dis- 
closed, what  value  is  there  in  stating  "  per  cents"  ? 

Let  me  illustrate.  A  main  who  has  just  finished 
a,  comfortable  supper,  and  who  has  had  before  that 
on  the  same  day  a  good  dinner  and  a  good  break- 
fast, says :  "  Well,  I  have  fared  well  for  food  to- 
day. It  contrasts  so  with  my  experience  one  day 
in  my  ajmy  life  that  I  can  but  feel  thankful  for 
my  present  happy  condition." 

"  Hold  on  a  moment,"  say  Mr.  Mills,  Mr. 
Springer,  Mr.  Carlisle  and  the  Right  Hon.  Sir 
Lyon  Playfair,  K.  C.  B.,  M.  P.,  "we  are  not  so 
sure  about  that.  TeU  us,  what  did  you  have 
for  breakfast  that  day  in  the  army  ?" 

The  old  soldier  answers,  "  About  half  of  a  hard- 
tack biscuit,  which  I  soaked  in  some  tough-look- 
ing water,  but  it  was  the  best  I  could  do." 

"Very  well;  what  did   you  have  for  dinner?" 

"  I  did  not  have  any  dinner  that  day.  We  were 
too  busy  to  look  after  rations." 

"All  right;  now  what  did  you  have  for  sup- 
per ?" 

"  I  had  a  whole  hard-tack  biscuit,  a  piece  of 
bacon  and  a  tin  cup  full  of  coffee— about  half  a 
meal,  but  not  half  a  one  for  a  man  as  hungry  as 
I  was." 

"  Now,  then,  tell  us,  what  did  you  have  for 
breakfast  this  morning  ?" 

"Oh,  let  me  see!  Some  ham  and  eggs,  some 
baked  potatoes,  some  bread  and  butter,  some  grid- 
dle cakes  with  maple  syrup  and  two  cups  of  ex- 
cellent coffee,  with  cream." 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


"  Just  so.     Now,   what   for   dinner  ?" 
"  We  had  an  old-fashioned  boiled  dinner— corned 
beef  and  cabbage  and  other  vegetables— and  ended 
up  with  a  suet  pudilinii  boiled  in  a  bag." 
'■  E.\actly  ;  and  what  for  supper  ?" 
"  Rather  a  liglit  supper.     Just  some  tea-biscuits 
with  fresh  creamery  butter  and  honey,  and  a  bit 
of  cold  goose  lelt  over  from  a  swell  dinner  my 
wife  had  given  some  friends  a  day  or  two  ago,  and 
a  cup  of  tea." 

'•  Now,  you  wait  just  a  bit,"  says  the  English 
spoUesuian,  "while  we  four  intellec'tual  giants  re- 
tire and  make  the  necessary  mathematical  calcula/- 
tions,  and  we  will  then  report  to  you  whether 
you  have  any  cause  to  feel  happy  or  not."  The 
four  Free-Trade  wiseacres  then  go  by  themselves. 
They  cipher  and  stiidy,  and  study  and  cipher. 
They  agree  on  a  fair  estimate  of  the  food  projier- 
ties  in  half  of  an  army  hardtack  biscuit  and  add 
to  that  "no  dinner,"  and  then  get  at  the  amount 
of  food  properties  in  a  whole  hardtack  biscuit,  a 
piece  of  bacon  and  a  tin  cupful  of  coffee.  Mira- 
bile  dictu !  It  turns  out  that  the  old  soldier's 
condition  improved  at  least  300  per  cent  during 
that  day  in  the  army.  Then  they  go  through 
the  careful  estimates  of  his  breakfast,  dinner  and 
supper  that  day  and  those  at  home  and  find  that 
there  is  no  "per  cent"  in  his  favor.  If  anything, 
the  "per  cent"  is  against  him.  They  are  now 
ready  to  report,  and  the  whole  four  immediately 
attack  the  old  man  for  his  stupidity. 

"See  here,"  says  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  Lyon 
Playfair,  K.  C.  B.,  M.  F.,  "  you  are  rejoicing,  old 
man,  over  j-our  condition  here  at  home  to-day, 
whereas  you  should  rejoice  over  your  real  condi- 
tion that  day  in  the  army."  "Of  course  you 
should,"  chime  in  the  three  American  allies. 
"How  is  that?"  timidly  inquires  the  old  veteran. 
"  Why,  we  find  that  you  had  an  improvement  of 
fully  300  per  cent  that  day,  while  to-day  the 
per  cent  is  against  you !  It  is  a  matter  of  mathe- 
matical demonstration." 

The  old  soldier  with  ''a  sort  of  dreamy,  far- 
away look  in  liis  eye,"  says  to  himself,  "Per  cent. 
per  cent ;  I  don't  remember  eating  anything  of 
that  kind.  Yet,  it  must  be  some  kind  of  victuals, 
else  these  big  men  would  not  mention  it." 

All  ol  a  sudden  he  espies  the  buttonhole  bouquet 
in  the  lapel  of  Mr.  Springer's  coat  and  mistakes 
him  for  a  military  man,  and  siding  up  to  him, 
asks :  "  Did  we  have  any  'per  cent'  issued  among 
our  army  rations?" 

"  I  am  not  an  army  man, "  says  the.  Congressman 
from  nUnois.  "  Colonel  MUls,  here,  is  the  mili- 
tary chieftain  of  this  band  of  economic  heroes." 

The  veteran  then  turns  pleadingly  to  the  Con- 
gressman from  Texas :  "  How  is  It,  comrade ;  did 
we  ever  have  any  'per  cent'  among  our  rations 
In  the  army?" 

"Don't  you  comrade  me,"  Mr.  MUls  retorts; 
"  I  am  no  comrade  of  yours.  I  am  a  Free-Trader. 
and  was  in  the  Confederate  Army." 

"  Very  weU ;  but  the  'boys  in  gray'  had  rations, 
did  they  not  ?  Please  tell  me ;  did  they  ever  have 
any  of  this  'per  cent'  which  this  gentleman  tells 
me  I  had  200  of  that  day,  when  it  seemed  to  me 
I  would  starve?" 

"Old  man,  go  and  put  your  head  in  soak."  is 


the  classical  and  customary  reply  from  the  Texai 
statesman. 

So  the  old  soldier  Y^'ould  leave  these  four  great 
teachers  of  free-trade  sorely  perplexed,  and  would 
woiiiicr  still  what  this  "per  cent"'  could  be  over 
which  he  ought  to  have  rejoiced  that  day  in  the 
army,  and  which  really  had  in  it  more  cause 
for  rejoicing  than  belonged  to  the  day  he  had 
just  passed,  which  seemed  to  him  so  full  of 
blessings. 

Our  Leeds  orator  then  grapples  with  the  ques- 
tion us  to  who  pays  the  duties,  the  foreign  pro- 
ducer or  the  home  consumer.  He  concludes,  after 
the  manner  of  all  Free-Tradei-s,  that  these  duties 
come  out  of  the  consumers ;  and  he  then  states 
that  the  McICinley  bill  will  cost  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  in  addition  to  old  rates  on 
metal,  woollen,  cotton  and  linen  goods  lall  of 
which  are  largely  made  in  LeedsJ,  about  §32,- 
000,000  each  year.  If  this  money  is  all  coming 
out  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  what  were 
the  men  in  l^eeds  grumbling  about  ?  .  They  will 
still  get  the  same  price  for  their  goods.  If  not, 
wliy  not?  Why  did  he  tell  them  that  the  biU 
w»uld  prove  most  disastrous  to  England  or  more 
disastrous  to  her  than  tu  any  other  European 
Nation,  if  the  duties  are  all  paid  by  our  consumers  ? 
He  then  asserts  that  American  Protectionists 
well  understand  that  the  Ijill  will  raise  prices,  and 
in  support  of  that  assertion  he  suys :  ■•  Jay  Gould, 
a  millionaire,  is  stated  to  justify  the  rise  in  prices 
because  it  will  teach  a  wori«ingman  thrift,  lor 
wiiile  he  now  buys  a  suit  of  clothes  once  in  the 
year,  in  the  future  he  will  make  it  last  liim  two 
years.  Why  should  he  not  go  further  and  recom- 
mend the  workingman  not  to  buy  clothes  at  aU  ? 
But  decency  reminds  me  that  I  ought  not  to  men- 
tion what  the  result  would  be."  I  never  saw  Mr. 
Gould  in  my  lite.  I  know  nothing  about  what 
his  views  on  the  tariff  are ;  but  I  will  wager  a 
big  apple  (and  apples  are  scarcej  that  he  never 
made  any  such  remark.  How  do  I  know  ?  Let 
me  tell  you.  Some  one  once  said  to  Andy  John- 
son :  "  They  tell  me.  Mi'.  Johnson,  that  you  are 
a  Spiritualist.  Is  that  so  ? "  "  Yes, "  was  his  in- 
stant replj' ;  "  but  I  am  not  a fool  I  "  It  will  be 

readily  gathered  from  that  answer  of  Mr.  John- 
son's why  I  am  sure  that  Jay  Gould  never  made 
any  such  remark  as  the  one  attributed  to  him. 
More  than  that,  if  the  Eight  Honorable  Sir  Lyon 
Playfair,  K.  C.  B.,  M.  P.,  wiU  be  honest,  I  wiU 
wager  another  apple  that  he  wiU  admit  that  he 
had  no  idea  that  Mr.  Gould  ever  uttered  such  a 
sentiment  when  he  made  the  statement  to  his 
audience  at  Leeds.  If  his  devotion  to  decency- 
were  anywhere  near  as  strong  as  he  intimated, 
why  did  he  attempt  to  bolster  up  his  cause  vrtth 
such  an  absurd  freak  of  some  dishonest  Free- 
Trader's   imagination  ? 

Not  satisfied  with  such  an  indecent  imputation 
upon  the  common-sense  of  an  American  cithzen. 
who,  say  what  people  may  of  him,  has  never  yet> 
been  classed  among  the  "fools,"  this  orator  then 
says:  "AH  this  kind  of  justification  of  the  tariff 
by  leading  men  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the 
general  assertion  that  the  effect  of  protective 
tariffs  in  America  has  been  to  lower  the  prices  of 
commodities.  T'hey  point  to  steel,  which,  in  1874. 
sold  at  twelve  pounds  sterling  per  ton,  and  has  row 
been  lowered  to  about  five  pounds  sterling." 
That  is,  that  this  statement  of  Mr.  Gould  (waich 
Mr.  Gould  never  made),  and  eimilar  statement* 
of  other  leading  men,  not  one  of  which  was  ever 


BI&    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAH. 


■66 

made,  is  inconsistent  with  what  these  leading  men 
actually  do  claim !  If  any  one  can  surpass  that 
statement  lor  indecent  impudence,  it.  will  piea=e 
me  to  watch  the  attempt.  This  aentieman  tells 
us  that  he  was  present,  and  so  ol  course  heard 
the  arguments  ou  the  McICiuley  hill.  He  knows 
then,  very  well,  that  every  Protectionist  m  this 
country  claims  that  the  llnal  result  of  our  pro- 
tective system  has  been  to  cheapen  all  articles 
manufactured  here.  He  should  know  that  tlie 
facts  bear  out  this  inference.  We  do  not  con- 
fine the  statement  to  steel.  We  simply  name  that 
as  one  article  among  all  the  rest.  It  is  just  as 
true  of  salt,  cutlery,  earthenware,  glass  goods, 
silks,  cotton  goods,  starch,  nails,  paper-pulp,  etc., 
etc— every  one  are  cheaper  now  than  when  we 
trusted  to  the  foreign  manufacturers  for  our  sup- 
plies. Why  did  he  not  name  one  single  article  of 
which  this  is  not  true  ?  He  would  not  be  slow 
to  do  it  if  he  could.  Instead  of  doing  that,  he 
rushes  off  into  tin  plate  liefore  we  have  had  time 
to  try  that. 

Listen  to  him :  "  Neither  have  I  alluded  to  the 
monstrous  tax  on  tin  plates,  which  may  restrict 
consumption,  as  the  tax  is  likely  to  amount  to 
four  millions  sterling.  It  will  certainly  raise  the 
price  on  domestic  utensils  and  canned  provisions; 
but  South  Wales  need'  not  fear  that  tin  plates 
will  be  made  in  the  United  States  in  any  quan- 
tity. I  could  give  good  reason  for  this  belief, 
but  time  fails  me."  It  is  very  plain  what  reason 
was  running  in  the  gentleman's  mind.  Wantof 
time  was  not  really  what  caused  his  failure  to 
name  it.  He  could  not  have  named  it  witlioiit 
betraying  some  of  his  coadjutors  in  this  country, 
who  had  thus  earlj^  informed  him  that  capital  al- 
ready had  been  frightened  out  of  the  tin-plate  in- 
dustry here  in  the  United  States. 

I  am  very  glad,  however,  that  we  have  Anally 
one  straight  prediction  from  a  Free-Trader  as  to 
what  will  be  the  result  of  this  tariff  on  even  on 
one  article,  to  wit,  tin  plate.  I  now  propose  to 
match  this  nrediction  of  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  Lyon 
Flayfair.  K.  C.  B  ,  M.  P.,  Free-Trader,  etc.,  with 
one  from  a  Protectionist,  who  has  no  very  long 
tail  at  either  end  of  his  name.  First,  domestic 
utensils  and  tin  cans  will  not  rise  in  price  for  any 
great  lencth  of  time,  it  at  all,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, inside  of  two  years,  tin  plate  will  be  ch"ai:er, 
and  we  will  get  a  lietter  article  for  less  money 
than  we  are  now  paying  for  the  foreign  product. 
Second,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  South 
Wales  fears  or  not,  tin  plate  will  be  made  in  the 
United  States,  not  only  in  considerable  quantilies, 
but  in  large  quantities,  and  that  too  within  a  few 
months.  Dare'  this  English  Free-Ti-ader  agree  to 
submit  the  question  of  protection  and  free  trade 
as  to  prices  to  this  test  ?  I  know  my  predictions 
are  as  unequivocal  as  liis.  Come.  now.  What 
can  home  competition  do  to  cheapen  the  price  of 
an  article  ?  That  question  can  be  settled  by  this 
one  experiment,  at  least,  as  between  us  two  in- 
dividuals.    I  am  ready  to  risk  the  result.     Is  he  ? 

I  cannot  close  this  article  without  warring  the 
good  people  of  South  Wales  against  being  mis'ed 
\>y  the  predictions  of  this  distinguished  gentle- 
man. Tin  plate  is.  to-day,  being  made  in  no  in- 
considerable quantity  in  this  country.  Several 
large  works  for  its  mnn\itacture  are  already  being 
built.  The  plates,  both  of  ii'on  and  steel,  are 
Ibeing  manufactured  now  and  laid  aside  tor  use 
when  the  tariff  on  tin  plate  goes  into  effect,  and 
the  people  of  this  country  propose  to  make  large 
quantities  of  this  article  right  here  in  our  own 
mills  and  by  the  aid  of  our  own  Workmen.  We 
have  never  yet  started  a  new  industiy  in  this 
country  without  having  met  this  same  cry  of 
"  Wolf !  wolf ! "  from  these  same  Free-Traders. 
Our  people  have  learned  not  to  be  frightened  at 
this  clatter  of  tongues.  The  noise  has  become 
familiar  to  us  all.  Then  permit  me  to  assure 
.you  that  our  business  men  certainly  intend  to 
■make  our  own  tin  plate  In  tlie  near  future,  not 
because  they  love  South  Wales  less,  but  the 
United  States  of  America  more.  That  they  may 
succeed  in  this  laudable  undertaking  is  my  hope 
and  earnest  prayer.  E.  G  HORR. 


IN  AMERICA  THE  PEOPLE  RULE 


WHAT   GOVERNMENTS   ARE   FOE   AND   WHY 
THEY  exist: 


AN     ENTERTAINING-     ACCOUNT     OP     THE     "WHOLE 

MATTER      FOR      AMERICAN      VOTERS     TO 

READ.      ESPECIALLY      THOSE      WHO 

ARE    POREIGN    BORN. 

It  is  well  for  people  Uving  under  any  form  ol 
government  to  stop  at  liimes  and  examine  the 
(luestion  as  to  how  it  happens  that  there  are  any 
Governments  among  men,  and  also  try  and  learn 
the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  Govern- 
ments are  founded,  and  more  especially  the  prin- 
ciples which  underlie  the  government  of  the  Nation 
in  which  they  are  living  themselves.  A  study  of 
this  sort,  while  good  tor  all,  is.  especially  desir- 
able for  that  large  number  of  our  fellow-citizens 
of  foreign  birth   who  have  come  among  us  to  live. 

Nations  have  come  into  existence  only  after  a 
slow  growth  for  ages.  An  individual,  solitary 
and  alone,  could  simply  make  a  struggle  for  life, 
without  being  helped  or  hampered  by  arfy  other 
of  his  species ;  and  when  he  died,  that  would  be 
the  end  of  him.  His  end  would  be  mourned  by 
no  one.  Nature  ordained  that  the  human  race 
can  be  continued  in  existence  only  by  the  com- 
mingling of  the  sexes.  Hence  the  first  form  of 
government  on  the  face  of  the  earth  must  have 
been  the  family.  The  father  and  mother,  their 
children  and  their  children's  childi-en,  constituted 
an  organization  of  persons  who  had  interests  in 
common,  and  their  interests  being  mutual,  they 
soon  came  to  make  common  cause  of  the  rights 
or  wrongs  oi"  each  person  in  the  family.  Tlie 
oldest  man  of  the  family  came  naturally  to  assume 
the  highest  authority,  and  just  as  naturally  re- 
ceived the  oompletest  homage.  The  entire  house- 
hold, from  youth  up,  became  accustomed  to  obey 
him,  to  look  up  to  him  for  aid  and  counsel.  His 
word  soon  came  to  be  law,  and  his  decisions,  of 
necessity,  final.  This  family  relation  came  in  time 
to  be  considered  sacred,  and  the  authority  of  each 
patriarch,  that  is.,  of  the  oldest  man  in  each  fam- 
ily, became  supreme  at  a  very  early  day  in  the 
existence    of    the    human    race. 

Thus,  in  the  very  dawn  of  civilization,  obedi- 
ence to  the  commands  of  one  person  came  to  be 
considered  a  duty,  and  the  right  of  such  person 
to  exercise  power  was  fully  established,  and  has 
never  since  been  questioned  by  any  civilized  peo- 
ple. That  same  power  is.  exercised  to-day  by  the 
head  of  every  family,  and  the  same  obedience  is 
required  among  all  the  civilized  descendants  of 
Adam. 

As  population  increased,  as  families  became 
more  numerous,  as  the  flgiit  for  a  living  became 
more  severe,  families  which  had  intermarried  with 
each  other  began  to  form  clans,  or  tribes,  for 
purposes  of  defence  and  common  protection.  Thus 
small  bands  of  men  with,  a  common  interest  learned 
to  make  a  common  cause  with  each  other.  The 
patriarchs  and  their  followers  united  to  form  a 
community   larger   than   the   family,    but   Nature 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YKAE. 


67 


had  made  no  provision  for  a  leader  of  the  tril)e. 
His  selection  must  ot  nccessirj-  liave  been  made 
•by  tliose  constituting  tlie  tribe.  Tliey  naturally 
chose  some  man  anions  them  noted  for  h's  pliysi- 
■cal  strength,  for  his  cunning  and  courage,  and  he 
'became  the  chief  of  tlie  tribe.  Having  been  se- 
lected, wliat  would  be  more  natural  than  that  he 
sliould  he  given  tlie  same  power  over  tribal  mat- 
ters  which  the  patriarch  had  long  possessed 
over  the  family  ?  This  was;  the  second  step  in  the 
formation  of  all  govormnents.  Tills  chosen  chief 
at  once  Iwcame  a  ruler  of  men,  but  his  place 
and  (lower  vpere  given  to  him  by  the  people  compoe- 
■L'lg  the  tribe. 

In  the  outset,  no  man  could  have  been  born  a 
chief.  He  had  to  prove  himself  worthy  of  the 
place,  and  the  ottice  must  have  Ijeen  given  him 
by  till'  consent  ot  those  who  constituted  the  clan 
■or  tril>e. 

REPUBLICS     AND    MON.VRCHIES. 

After  a  lapse  ot  time  clans  and  tribes  became 
more  numerous  and  they  finally  banded  them- 
selves together  into  still  larger  communities  and 
formed  nations,  also  for  purposes  of  mutual  pro- 
tection and  profit.  These  combinations  soon  dis- 
covered the  need  of  some  supreme  authority,  some 
person  vested  with  the  right  to  command  and  re- 
ceive obedience.  To  meet  such  a  necessity  they 
selected,  no  doubt  at  first  always  from  among  the 
chiefs,  a  ruler;  and  he  was  placed  at  the  head 
ot  all  the  clans  or  tribes  in  settUng  national  ques- 
tions. In  this  case,  too,  he  muot  have  received 
his  place  from  the  choice  of  the  men  consti- 
tuting the  tribes  or  clans.  So  it  is  very  clear 
that  in  those  early  days  there  could  have  been 
no  such  thing  as  a  man  being  born  a  king  or  a 
ruler.  In  those  early  times  all  rulers  must  have 
been  selected  or  chosen  to  their  place. 

As  the  ownership  of  property  came  to  be  under- 
stood and  agreed  to,  the  right  of  inheritance  also 
came  to  be  insisted  upon  and  recognized ;  and 
thus,  property  came  to  be  held  in  the  same 
family  from  generation  to  generation.  Out  of 
that  idea,  no  doubt,  afterward  grew  up  the 
notion  that  families  could  also  inherit  the  right 
to  rulership.  When  a  man  possessed  great 
strength,  courage,  capacity,  and  did  great  things 
for  his  people,  why  should  he  not  impart  to  his 
children  the  same  power  to  dare  and  to  do  ?  Re- 
ligious notions  may  liave  aided  in  the  work  at 
an  early  day,  and  helped  to  form  the  idea  of 
the  divine  rights  of  kings  and  princes.  In  my 
judgment,  however,  the  notions  that  people  had 
about  their  rulers  had  far  more  to  do  with  the 
shaping  of  their  idols  than  their  ideas  about 
their  deities  had  in  determining  the  character 
they  attributed  to  their  rulers.  It  was  no  doubt 
a  long  time  before  any  man  claimed  the  divine 
right  to  rule  or  even  the  right  to  do  so  on  account 
of  his  birth.  The  idea  that  kings  received  their 
light  to  govern  from  on  high  came  from  theology ; 
it  was  resoi-ted  to  on  account  of  the  constantly  re- 
•ourring  claim,  which  has  been  stated  over  and 
over  again  from  time  immemorial,  tliat  rulers  got 
their  power  from  the  people.  The  world  has 
never  been  free  from  people  somewhere  who  were 
.asserting  that  the  right  to  govern  could  not  be 
inherited  and  did  not  come  from  above,  but  that 


it  was  a  right  which  came  only  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed.  Kings  and  prinoes  have  of 
late  never  ceased  claiming  that  their  right  to 
rule  comes  from  on  high;  and  that  human  agen- 
cies have  no  right  to  interfere  \vith  them  in  their 
exercise  of  a  power  bestowed  upon  them  by  the 
Almighty. 

Those  people  wlio  Ijelieved  that  the  power  to 
govern  could  come  only  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed  formed  republics  and  chose  their  own 
rulers.  Other  people  recognized  the  alleged 
"divine  right"  of  certain  families  to  rule;  and 
tliey  submitted  to  be  governed  by  monarchs  and 
kings. 

The  nation  in  which  Americans  live  has  been 
managed  for  over  a  century  now  upon  the  old. 
primitive  plan  that  the  people  are  the  source  of 
all  civil  power.  A  little  examination  will  show 
how  completely  we  have  preserved  all  the 
ancient  divisions  and  landmarks. 

E.VOrt   DISTRICT  SUPREME  IN  ITS  OWN  WAY. 

We  still  have  the  original  form  and  power  of 
the  family.  In  the  great  bulk  of  the 
duties  and  transactions  of  life,  the  fam- 
ily is  still  supreme.  In  the  management 
of  the  household,  in  the  gaining  of  a  living,  m  the 
training  and  management  of  children,  in  nearly  all 
there  is  of  ordinary  daily  life,  each  family  manages 
it«  own  att'aii-s,  submits  to  dictation  from  neither 
priest  nor  potentate,  and  is  seldom  interfered  with 
by  the  otticers  of  Church  or  State.  Families  are 
seldom  meddled  with  by  ohe  rest  of  the  world.  It 
may  seem  strange,  but  it  is  true,  that  nearly 
all  the  ordinary  transactions  ot  life  are  controlled 
and  managed  under  the  unwritten  law  of  the 
household.  Each  famfiy  is  a  law  unto  itself;  and 
no  two  are  governed  precisel.y  alike  in  any  nation. 
This  is  as  it  should  be.  The  family,  the  home, 
is  the  natural  unit  of  power  with  which  the 
world  has  been  civilized.  It  is  the  first,  the 
natural  organization  of  human  beings.  Its  pre- 
cincts should  always  be  held  sacred ;  its  pre- 
rogatives should  be  abridged  as  little  as  possible. 

In  the  place  of  the  ancient  clans  and  tribes  we 
now  have  school  and  road  districts,  towns,  cities, 
counties  and  States,  and  all  these  toget-her  make 
up  the  Nation.  Certain  minor  matters  are  left 
to  small  districts.  These  were  organized,  not  as 
the  result  of  any  theory,  but  as  a  matter  of 
growth. 

The  school  district  is  as  small  a  portion  of  the 
country  as  can  maintain  a  school.  As  the  popula- 
tion increases,  the  district  is  made  smaller,  so  as 
to  save  the  children  travel. 

A  road  district  is  fixed  by  the  distance  within 
which  people  can  readilj-  go  to  work  on  the 
road. 

These  small  districts  have  certain  duties  to 
perform,  and  in  matters  pertaining  to  those  small 
districts  they  are  supreme.  In  hiring  a  district 
school-teacher,  the  town,  or  the  county  or  State 
have  no  voice ;  nor  would  they  be  permitted  to 
interfere  any  moi^e  than  the  directors  of  a  school 
district  would  be  permitted  to  meddle  in  the 
management  of  any  family  in  that  district  ex- 
cept  their   own. 

The  townsliips  and  cities  are  still  larger  or- 
ganizations   than    the    school    districts.         They 


BIG    ISSUES    or    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


take  charge  of  matters  of  a  wider  scope  than  those 
intrusted  to  these  small  distiicts.  They,  too, 
are  supreme  in  matters  intrusted  to  them ;  and 
in  such  matters  the  counties  and  States  are  not 
permitted  to  interfere. 

Again,  in  matters  which  pertain  to  the  ooueties 
the  latter  are  also  supreme.  They  have  charge  of 
}arge  bridges,  building  and  furnishing  courthouses, 
recording  of  deeds,  probating  of  wills,  etc.,  etc. 
The  State  never  tbinlvs  of  interfering  in  any  way 
with  the  duties  which  belong  to  the  counties. 

The  States  are  still  larger  organizations  and 
have  charge  of  broader  and  weightier  affairs.  In 
matters  which  belong  to  them,  the  States  also  are 
supreme.  They  have  absolute  control;  the  Na- 
tion has  no  right  to  meddle  in  any  way  with 
purely   State  matters. 

Last  of  all  comes  the  Nation,  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  with  National  powers  and 
National  rights.  In  all  matters  that  are  Na- 
tional the  Nation  ie  supreme,  and  its  laws  are 
final 

Let  us  now  go  back  again  to  the  unit  of  power, 
the  family.  WhUe  it  is  supreme  in  so  many  of 
the  transactions  of  life,  still  the  moment  a  school 
district  is  formed  and  the  members  of  the  family 
have  become  members  of  that  organization,  then 
the  family  ceases  to  have  the  right,  as  a  family, 
to  interfere  with  the-  management  of  the  school. 
Even  the  right  to  control  and  correct  their  own 
children  while  in  the  school-room  has  been  dele- 
gated to  the  larger  organization,  and  that 
body  is  clothed  with  full  power  to  do  whatever 
is  best  and  proper  to  secure  a  good  school.  The 
rights  of  the  family  over  its  children  must  give 
way  to  the  rights  of  the  larger  organization  in 
its  efforts  to  perform  its  duties.  So  it  is  all  the 
way  up  the  ladder.  While  the  larger  organiza- 
tions have  no  right  to  meddle  with  matters  which 
pertain  to  the  smaller  ones,  the  smaller  ones  are 
equally  bound  to  yield  to  the  larger  in  all  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  the  peculiar  duties  of  the  latter. 

AU  the  tails  about  the  "supremacy  and  sov- 
ereignty of  the  States"  has  no  special  signifloance. 
It  would  be  just  as  sensible  to  talk  about  the 
"sovereignty"  of  the  family,  the  school  district, 
the  town,  the  city  or  the  county,  as  of  tliat  of 
the  State.  Each  of  these  organizations  is  supreme 
in  its  own  special  department,  one  no  more  than 
another. 

At  the  top  round  of  the  ladder  is  the  Nation, 
supreme  in  all  National  matters,  and  from  whose 
decision  there  is  no  app»»al.  Its  courts  are  those 
of  last  resort,  its  laws  the  supreme  laws  of  the 
land.  Its  jurisdiction  is  hemmed  in  by  no  State 
lines.  It  takes  notice  neither  of  districts  nor 
towns,  nor  counties.  Its  only  question  is  where 
is  the  boundary  line  of  the  United  States,  and 
every  where  witliin  those  lines  it  is  equally  at 
home  Failure  to  recognize  this  principle  led  to 
civil  war.  The  people  of  the  South  constantly 
talked  about  being  "invaded"  by  the  Federal 
Aimy.  The  Army  qt  the  United  States  is  never 
an  Invading  army  so  long  as  It  remains  within 
the  boundaries  of  this  Nation.  A  nation  cannot 
"  invade "  itself.  In  an  attempt  to  enforce  Na- 
tional laws,  the  Nation  never  stops  to  inquire 
about  State  lines  or  other  local  Hues.  I  know 
the  Constitution  provides  that  the  Government 
may  send  the  National  troops  into  a  State,  after 
having  been  requested  to  do  so  by  the  Governor 
of  that  Stale,  but  that  is  when  the  Governor 
desires  help  to  enforce  some  State  law.  There  is 
no  such  provision  as  to  the  enforcement  of  Na- 
tional laws.     Suoh  a  provision  as  that  in  reference 


to  sustaining  National  authority  ^vould  be  simply 
ridiculous. 

From  what  has  gone  before,  it  is  evident  thas. 
the  people  are  the  soui-ce  ot  all  power  in  this- 
country.  Our  oiliciais,  are  expected  simply  to 
carry  out  the  will  of  the  people.  It  then  follows 
as  a  matter  of  necessity  that  to  have  a  wise  and 
intelligent  Government  our  people  must  be  wise 
and  intelligent  themselves,  because  tUey  are,  in 
fact,  the  Government. 

No  man  is  born  to  any  civil  or  political  office 
in  the  United  States.  Rulers  are  made  and  un- 
made at  the  will  of  the  people.  Our  theory  is  that 
the  people  will  select  the  best  men  for  place  and 
power.  They  often  fail  to  do  so,  but  they  hit 
it  right  more  frequently  than  is  done  when  these 
oifices  are  filled  by  the  accidents  of  birth. 

A    RULER'S    FIRST    TRAINING. 

In  a  Republic  lil!:e  ours,  the  Nation  rests  upon 
the  intelligence,  virtue  and  honesty  of  the  indi- 
vidual men  and  women  living  within  our  borders. 
Cultivated,  pure,  honest  people  give  pure,  happy 
homes,  and  good  homes  secure  good  rulers,  good 
lawmakers  and  a  good  Govei'nment. 

In  the  very  outset,  men  being  physically  stronger 
than  women,  being  free  from  the  duty  of  nursing 
the  young,  it  naturally  fell  to  their  lot  to  provide- 
looct  tor  the  families  and  to  bear  the  burdens 
of  protection  and  defence.  Women  had  other 
duties  which  fell  to  them  naturall,y.  In  thisvyvay, 
from  time  immemorial,  the  duty  of  managing  Gov- 
ernments and  defending  them  from  foreign  foes- 
has  been  considered  the  proper  work  for  men. 
When  one  recollects  that  the  family  is  the  unit 
of  political  power  in  this  world,  it  will  be  seen 
that  so  long  as  the  families  are  lepresented  the 
entire  people  are  also  represented.  It  is  too  true 
that  man  has  often  been  a  tyrant  in  the  exercise 
of  the  power  given  him  in  the  organization  of 
the  family.  But  in  very  many  more  cases  he  has 
been  an  affectionate  husband,  a  kind  father,  a 
hard-working  provider  and  a  genuine  protector 
for  his  family.  A  man  who  does  not  matiage  hia 
household  on  the  principles  of  love  and  kindness 
is  one  of  the  worst  of  rulers  among  men.  He  is 
causing  misery  at  the  very  threshold  of  human 
societj'.  The  first  duty  of  every  human  being  is  to 
learn  to  govern  himself.  Then  he  will  manage 
his  family  well.  That  will  prepare  liim  to  do 
well  in  managing  a  t-ownship.  He  will  soon  be 
valuable  in  the  affairs  of  the  State,  and  will  be 
fitted  for  a  place  among  the  Nation's  rulers. 

When  once  understood,  I  believe  our  form  of 
government  will  be  admitted  to  be  the  best  ever 
.vet  devised.  The  system  of  local  management 
being  left  with  the  people  of  each  locality  for  them- 
selves, is  as  perfect  a  plan  as  has  ever  yet  been 
formed.  If  our  people  could  only  always  agree 
on  what  is  best  to  be  done,  there  woinfT  be 
little  friction  in  the  management  of  alfairs. 
Here  comes  the  trouble.  Good  men  often  differ 
as  to  what  policy  should  be  punsned. 
They  cannot  agree  as  to  what  is  best.  Sellishness- 
and  ignorance  also  mix  up  in  the  solution  of  the 
problem,  and  sometimes  wickedness  and  bad 
motives  are  not  wanting.  A  decision  must  be 
made.  In  an  absolute  monarchy  the  question 
would  be  settled  by  the  will  of  the  monarch.  In 
a  republic,  we  leave  the  decision  to  the  vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  people.  -Our  theory  is  that 
the  ma,iority  will  be  more  likely  to  be  right 
than  the  minority,  and  certainly  more  likely  to 
be  right  than  anj'  one  man. 

Thus  it  becomes  evident  that  the  intelligence 
of  the  voter,  which  will  enable  him  to  decide 
wisely,  and  then  an  hoinest  count  of  the  ballots, 
so  as  to  learn  where  the  majority  stands,  these 
are  the  two  safeguards  of  this  Republic.  Intelli- 
gent, well-informed  people  and  an  honest,  fair 
election  are  the  snbstratusn  on  which  rests  this- 
great  American  Nation.  Pure  homes,  well  regu- 
lated families,  good  common  schools,  an  untram-  \ 
melled  press,  and  honest  ballots  honestly  counted' 
will  keep  this  Nation  amons-  the  best  and  wisest 
Governments  on  the  face  of  the  earth.     E.  G.  Hv 


THE   RECIPROCITY   POLICY, 


EXCHANGES       OF      XOX'COMPETIJSG       I'RODVCTS      PliO' 
MOTED      BY     THE     TREATIES. 


ENLARGING  EXPORT   TRADE 


RESOUIiCES    (iF    IlhilPJlOCITY. 

The  Reciprocity  treaties  which  have  been 
negotiated  are  tlie  beginning  but  not  the  end 
of  a  gre<at  policy.  If  it  had  been  impractical)le 
for  the  State  Department  to  make  commercial 
arran^'ements  ^^•ith  any  Southern  countries,  all 
would  have  remained  on  equal  terms  after  the 
1st  of  January.  Not  one  of  them  would  have 
been  placed  at  a  disadvantage  in  comparison 
with  the  others,  if  the  fiee  market  for  coffee, 
sugar,  molasses  and  hides  had  been  withdrawn 
from  all.  In  order  to  convert  the  Recijiroeitj- 
amendment  into  a  lever  for  opening  many  for- 
eign markets  for  American  exports  it  was  neces- 
sary to  bring  it  to  bear  upon  the  two  chief 
sources  from  which  coffee  and  sugar  were  de- 
■rived.  As  soon  as  Brazil  and  the  Spanish  West 
Indies  were  di-avin  into  commercial  union  a 
basis  was  established  for  future  discriminations 
against  comp3ting  countries,  which  might  be 
reluctant  to  comply  -uith  the  i>equii'ements  of 
equitable  Eeciprocitj . 

.  Herein  lies  the  ix)tential  efficiency  of  the 
Aldrich  amendment.  The  free  market  for 
coffee,  sugar,  molasses  and  hides  is  offered  on 
equal  teims  to  all  the  Southern  countries.  Those 
willing  to  pay  for  their  privileges  by  making 
reasonable  concessions  to  the  American  export 
trade  will  retain  that  free  market  permanently. 
Those  accepting  it  only  as  a  gi-atuity  vnW  be 
deprived  of  the  benefits  of  unrestricted  trade 
in  these  tiopical  staples.  The  Reciprocity 
amendment  will  operate  after  the  close  of  this 
year  as  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  those  coun- 
tries which  comply  wth  the  conditions  of  the 
offer  of  the  free  market,  and  against  those 
which  neglect  their  opportunities.       The  lan- 


guage of  the  act  is  ex^plicit  respecting  the 
President's  ob'igations  to  enforce  a  fixed  sched- 
ule of  duties  whenever  the  conditions  of  trade 
are  inequitable  and  unreasonable.  It  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

That  with  a  view  to  secure  reciprocal  trade  with 
countries  producing  the  following  articles,  and  lor  this 
purpose,  on  and  after  the  first  day  of  January,  1892, 
whenever  and  so  often  as  the  President  shall  be  satls- 
llcd  that  the  Government  of  any  country  producing  and 
exporting  sugai-s,  molasses,  coffee,  tea  and  hides,  raw 
and  uncured.  or  any  of  such  articles.  Imposes  duties  or 
other  exactions  upon  the  agricultural  or  other  products 
of  the  t'nlted  States,  wliich  In  \new  of  the  free  intro- 
duction of  such  sugar,  molasses,  coffee,  tea  and  hides 
Into  the  fnltcd  States  he  may  deem  to  he  reciprocally 
unequal  aud  unreasonable,  he  shall  iiave  the 
power,  and  It  shall  be  his  duty  to  suspend, 
by  proclamation  to  that  effect,  the  provisions  of 
this  act  relating  to  the  free  introduction  of  such  sugar, 
molasses,  coffee,  tea  and  hides,  the  production  of  such 
country,  for  such  time  as  he  sliall  deem  just,  and  in 
such  case  and  during  stich  suspension  duties  shall  be 
levied.  collect'Jd  and  paid  upon  sugar,  molasses,  coffee, 
teaj  and  hides,  the  product  of  or  exported  from  such 
de^isnatetl  country  as  follows  :      (The  schedule  follows.) 

Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  the  President's 
duty  to  impose  the  schedule  of  duties  and 
thereby  to  plac«  a  premium  upon  the  produce 
of  oountii?s  entering  inti  commercial  union,  and 
to  discount  the  industries  of  those  which  do  not 
conform  to  the  requirements  of  reciprocal  trade. 
On  the  basis  of  the  caffee  importations  of  1890 
a  duty  of  3  cents  a  pound  -nill  make  in  favor  of 
Brazil  the  following  discriminations  against  the 
oountrie*  named  :  Venezuela,  lpl,722,614  13  ; 
Central  America,  8923.363  94:  Mexico.  §620,- 
009  2.5  :  Hayti,  -8201,04:9  50  :  British  West  In- 
dies, §146,18^1  OS.  To  these  discrin-inations 
will  be  added  the  duties  on  hides,  and  in  the 
case  of  the  British  West  Indies  the  duties  on 
sugar.  There  "nill  be  sufficient  force  in  this 
discrimination  in  favor  of  Brazil  to  comi)el 
Venezuela  and  the  other  coffee  countries  to 
make  Reciprocity'  treaties.  As  for  the  British 
West  Indies,  they  wU  be  ruined  without  Reci- 
procity. The  schedule  of  duties,  if  isnposed  on 
the  basis  of  recent  importations  from  Jamaica 
alone,  will  amount  to  §466,000  ;  and  for  the 
entire  group  it  will  be  not  less  than  81,500,000. 
If  the  Home  (Government  allows  the  interests 


70 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


of  the  islands  to  be  sacrificed  to  those  of  Bra- 
zil, the  Spanish  West  Indies  and  Santo  Domingo 
it  wM  be  wantonly  indifferent  to  their  fate. 

The  more  closely  the  Reciprocity  question  is 
studied  the  larger  and  more  practical  appear 
the  results  of  this  great  policy.  Congress  has 
armed  the  President  with  tremendous  power  in 
opening  the  Southern  markets  to  American 
trade.  Determined  as  he  is  known  to  be  to 
make  Reciprocity  and  the  enlargement  of  the 
Nation's  exporting  interests  the  crowning  issue 
of  his  Administration,  he  can  be  depended  upon 
to  employ  the  resources  of  the  act  to  their  full 
extent  during  the  last  fifteen  months  of  his 
tyerm. 

RECIPROCITY    AND    FREE  TRADE. 

For  a  week  "  The  World"  has  been  asking 
questions  like  this :  "  Are  foreignei-s  better 
than  Americans  that  they  should  be  untaxed 
and  our  own  people  left  burdened  ?"  "  If 
the  tariff  be  not  a  tax  on  consumers,  why  are 
these  foreign  people  congratulated  on  getting 
American  products  free  of  dutj'  ?"  "  If  it  be  a 
benefit,  as  all  conc-ede  that  it  is,  to  relieve 
South  American  and  Spanish  American  people 
from  tariff  taxes  on  universal  necessaries,  it 
■would  be  a  boon  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  to  relieve  them  of  similar  burdens,  as 
these  treaties  do  not."  "The  placing  of  coal  upon 
our  free  list  would  without  doubt  have  an  im- 
portant effect  upon  the  manufactures  in  New- 
England  that  are  being  forced  to  the  wall  by 
the  tax-enhanced  cost  of  their  fuel  and  raw 
materials." 

The  common  answer  to  all  these  questions 
is  that  the  tai-iffs  in  Spanish-America  are  not 
protective,  but  revenue  tariffs.  Take,  for  ex- 
ample, coaJ  in  Cuba.  There  are  no  coal  mines 
in  the  island  ;  there  is  no  industry,  as  there  is 
in  the  United  States,  that  Has  been  protected  by 
the  duty  ;  it  has  been  a  revenue  tax  imposed  in 
the  interest  of  the  Spanish  administration.  In 
the  same  manner  the  heavy  import  duties  on 
flour  have  not  been  levied  in  the  interest  of  the 
agricultural  classes  of  the  island.  There  is  no 
wheat  raised  in  Cuba.  It  is  a  country  which 
produces  sugar,  tobacco,  coffee  and  tropical 
fruits.  When  wheat  flour  has  been  taxed,  it 
has  been  for  revenue  purposes,  but  not  in  the 
interest  of  protection  of  home  industries.  The 
same  remarks  apply  to  all  the  South  American 
tariff's.  Not  one  of  them  is  protective  and  based 
upon  the  principles  of  our  own  economic  system. 
All  these  tariffs  are  modelled  after  the  Spanish 
system  of  taxation  and  are  designed  to  produce 
revenue,  and  very  largely  from  the  taxation  of 
food  products.  Venezuela,  for  examp'e,  taxes 
flour  over  100  per  cent,  and  does  it  for  revenue 
only,  without  protecting  in  the  least  its  agri- 
cultural population. 

When,  therefore",  our  inquisitive  Free-Trade 
neighbor  asks  such  questions  as  we  have  quoted 


it  leaves  Protection  out  of  the  case.  Take  the 
Reciprocity  oft'er  in  detail,  and  what  do  we- 
find  '?  The  abolition  of  revenue  taxes  on  articles 
of  common  oansumption  which  cannot  be  pro- 
duced in  the  United  States.  If  coff'ee  and  sugar 
were  taxed,  no  home  industries  would  be  bene- 
fited. 'J'hese  sources  of  revenue  are  given  up 
for  the  sake  of  cheapening  the  necessities  of 
life.  In  return,  Brazi',  Cuba  and  Santo  Domingo 
place  on  the  free  list  food  products  -i-s-hich  are 
necessary  there  but  cannot  be  raised  by  homo 
industry.  Reciprocity  in  the  main  involves  an 
exchange  of  non-competing  products  at  a  loss 
of  revenue  on  each  side,  but  without  sacrifice  of 
the  principle  of  Protection  as  it  is  iinderstooci 
in  the  United  States.  Such  manufactures  as 
are  included  in  the  free  lists  and  reduced 
schedules  obtained  in  payment  for  free  sugar 
and  free  coffee  are  those  which  are  not  carried 
on  in  Southern  countries.  The  revenue  tariffs 
are  Towered,  but  home  industries  and  productive 
interasts  are  not  sacrificed  either  North  or 
South. 

We  are  gJad  that  "  The  World"  is  tak- 
ing the  line  that  it  does  respecting  Reciprocity. 
It  is  bringing  out  in  the  strongest  way  the 
Free-Trade  tindencies  of  the  Democratic  party. 
The  Republican  party  m  its  taiiff  legislation 
and  Reciprocity  jwlicy  does  not  stand  for  revenue 
taxation,  but  for  the  development  of  National 
industries  and  the  employment  of  home  labor. 
It  is  not  asldng  Southern  countries  to  do  more 
than  the  United  States  is  doina.  and  that  is  to 
give  up  for  the  benefit  of  consumers  purely 
revenue  taxation  on  non-competing  products. 
When  Democrats  find  fault  with  Reciprocity  be- 
cause it  is  not  English  free-traae,  they  show 
what  it  is  they  really  want,  and  why  they  are 
hostile  to  the  system  of  Protection,  under  which 
American  prosperity  has  become  the  marvel  of 
the  modern  world.  Our  neighbor  is  forcing  the 
Free-Trade  issue.  Republicans  are  ready  for  it. 
By  all  means  let  it  be  made  tfhe  decisive  issue 
of  the  next  Presidential  canvass. 


DEVEhOPMEM  OF  RECIPIiOCITT. 
Reciprocity  is  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as 
a  theory  or  as  an  experiment.  It  is  a  policy 
which  is  producing  large  practical  results.  Three 
commercial  agreements  have  been  negotiated 
with  coff'ee  and  sugar  countries  and  three  for- 
eign markets  have  been  opened  to  the  products 
of  American  farms,  mines  and  factories.  These 
advantages  for  the  export  trade  have  been  se- 
cured without  the  sacrifice  of  the  principles  of 
Protection.  A  free  market  is  off'ered  to  South- 
ern countries  producing  staples  belonging  to  a 
diff'erent  zone.  The  value  of  that  free  market, 
which  is  the  best  in  the  world,  entitles  us  on 
strict  business  principles  to  have  certain  priv- 
ileges in  exchange  in  disposing  of  our  surplus 
products.     The  United  States,   as  the  heaviest 


BIG  ISSUES  or 

puri-haser  of  liiazilian  coffee  and  Cuban  sugar, 
is  allowed  by  the  Reciprocity  agreements  dis- 
criminating advantages  over  England  in  selling 
its  exports.  It  is  a  good  business  trade  with 
countries  having  a  largo  surplus  of  staples 
which  cannot  be  produced  in  the  United  States. 
Competing  American  industries,  like  tobacco, 
are  protected,  but  tropic-al  produce  which  we 
want  but  cannot  rairie  is  admitted  witho.ut  re- 
strictions ;  and  since  the  consninption  of  that 
pi'oduce  is  so  laige  as  to  create  an  overwhelm- 
ing balance  of  trade  in  favor  of  Southern  coun- 
tries, the  conditions  are  equitably  readjusted 
by  concessions  to  the  surplus  of  American  bread- 
stuffs,  meats  and  manufactures. 

A  good  many  of  our  Democratic  friends  the 
enemy  are  seeking  to  prove  that  Itecipi-ocity  is 
essentially  a  Free-Tiade  policy.  If  they  really 
think  so,  why  are  they  sneering  at  it  as  a  de- 
lusion and  a  trick?  Until  they  can  succeed 
in  demonstrating  that  any  competing  industrial 
interest  in  the  United  States  has  been  sacri- 
Hced  they  will  fail  in  convicting  a  Republican 
Congress  and  the  Harrison  Adminic-tration  of 
inconsistency  in  connecting  Reciprocity  with  the 
tariff  policy.  All  that  has  been  done  has  been 
to  facilitate  the  exchanges  of  different  zones 
and  to  get  something  like  its  full  value  for 
the  privilege  of  free  entry  into  a  market  of 
63,000,000  of  consumei-s.  Before  the  Reci- 
procity policy  was  put  into  effect,  the  United 
States  gave  aw^ay  its  free  market  without  se- 
curing any  compensating  advantages.  It  put 
cott'ee  on  the  free  list,  and  left  Brazil  free  to 
impose  an  exixnt  duty  npon  it.  Xo\v  there  is 
a  reversion  to  common-sense  business  principles. 
Consumers  have  the  full  benefit  of  a  free  mar- 
ket for  coffee  and  sugar,  and  exporters  of  farm 
and  factory  produce  receive  special  advantages 
in  trading  ^^■ith  Southern  countries.  The  re- 
sidts  will  be  apparent  when  the  following  table 
is  examined  : 

TRADE    WITH     SOUTHERN     CODXTRIES     IN     1890. 
Exx'ortr,  from       Imports  to 
Uniteil  States.  United  States. 

Spanish  West  Indies *15,381.953         $57,855,217 

EiazU    11,07L',:;H  59,338,756 

Santo  Domingo 920,051  1,951,013 

Total    $28,280,818       $119,124,980 

Venezuela 4,028, 58'i  10,900,705 

Mexico   13,285,287  22,690,915 

Central  America 5,650,946  8,:;39,375 

Hayti     5,101,464  2,421221 

Britlsli  West  Indies 8,288,780  14,865,018 

Guiana  2,540,797  4,918,7.30 

Other  West  Indies 3,498,368  911,672 

Plate    Countries 12,239.351  7,156,600 

West  Coast  States 7,905,703  7,645,287 

Total  $90,888,103        $198,940,575 

This  table  shows  at  once  the  results  of  Reci- 
procity, the  necessity  for  it  and  the  promise  of 
its  future  potency.  Out  of  a  total  importation 
of  9198,940.575  from  Southern  countries,  tieat- 
^es  have  been  made  with  three  which  supply 
considerably  more  than  one-half.  While  sell- 
ing .§119,124,986  of  their  produce  to  the  United 
States,  they  have  purchased  only  §28,280,818 
in  return.     Under  Reciprocity    these   countries 


aN  off  year.  71 

will   become   larger  buyers,    as  in   justice    and 
comnujn-sense  they  ought  to  be. 

Venezuela,  Me.xico,  Central  America,  the  Brit- 
ish West  Indies  and  Guiana  also  find  the  best 
market  for  their  staples  in  the  United  States. 
Reciprocity  is  nee&<sary  in  order  to  secure  aa 
equitable  ieadjustnient  of  trade.  The  President 
is  armed  by  Congress  with  power  under  the 
Aldrich  amendment  to  close  the  free  market  for 
coffee,  sugar  and  hides  against  those  nations- 
which  fail  to  enter  into  commercial  union  with 
the  United  States.  The  scope  of  the  Reci- 
procity policy  includes  all  the  countries  which, 
we  nave  named.  When  the  resources  of  the 
amendment  have  been  fully  employed  we  be- 
lieve that  all  these  republics  and  islands  will 
be  united  with  the  American  market  by  the- 
bonds  of  fair  and  reciprocal  exchange.  Then 
there  will  be  a  large  development  of  the  Ameri- 
can expiiit  trade  in  compensation  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  a  free  market  for  non-competing  trop- 
ical produc-e.  All  this  will  be  accomplished 
without  the  sacrific-e  of  any  American  interest. 


ATTACKS    oy    KECIFKOCIIY. 

Partisan  attacks  are  continued  upon  the  Reci- 
procity treaties,  and  mainly  without  knowledge 
of  the  facts.  Certain  Uemocj-atic  journals  have 
made  a  shaip  outcry  against  the  convention 
with  Santo  Domingo  on  the  ground  that  wheat 
Hoiu-  is  not  on  the  free  list  nor  on  the  reduced 
schedule  of  duties.  The  reason  for  its  exclusion 
wati  a  financial  one.  The  Dominican  Govern- 
ment is  w-retchedly  poor,  and  has  pledged  its 
customs  reA'enues  to  secure  a  loan  from  a  Dutch 
syndicate.  This  syndicate  has  been  allowed  to 
exercise  supervision  over  the  collection  of  duties. 
The  duly  on  flour  is  .S4  20  a  barrel,  and  it  is 
the  chief  source  of  revenue.  The  negotiators 
made  an  earnest  effort  to  obtain  free  flour,  but 
were  met  with  the  despairing  assertion  that 
the  ti-eaty  would  have  to  be  abandoned  if  this 
were  made  an  absolute  condition,  as  it  was  im- 
possible to  give  up  the  revenue  and  fulfil 
financial  obligations.  They  were  offered  a  much 
larger  list  of  articles  in  which  American  ex- 
porters now  have  very  little  trade  ■\\ith  the 
island,  such  as  cottons,  hats,  shoes,  furnitui'e, 
iron  goods  and  papers.  They  accepted  these 
concessions  the  more  readily  as  eveiy  barrel 
cf  Hour  now  imported  by  Santo  Domingo  comes 
from  the  United  .States.  There  is  no  competi- 
tion in  the  ffour  trade  with  any  other  country, 
as  there  is  in  Brazil  and  Cuba. 

Another  ground  for  captions  criticism  is  raised 
by  Democratic  journals  in  the  South.  They 
assert  that  Reciprocity  may  help  the  trade  in 
Northern  breadstuff's  and  manufactures,  but 
that  it  does  not  promote  the  interests  of  the 
South.  Their  attention  apparently  has  not  been 
directed  to  the  large  favors  obtained  by  the 
Spanish  treaties  for  the  products  and  industries 
of  the  Southern  States.     One   of  the  most  im- 


BIG    rSSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


portant  af  these  gains  is  the  addition  of  "  fish, 
live,  fresh,"  to  the  free  list.  Fifteen  years  agi 
the  entire  consumijtiou  of  fish  in  Cuba  was 
supplied  from  the  Florida  coast  fisheries.  It 
maintained  a  large  fleet  of  fishing  vessels.  It 
vfas  not  only  a  pi'oiitable  trade,  but  it  also 
recruited  a  useful  body  of  sailors  available  in 
time  of  war.-  The  industry  was  either  de- 
stroyed or  transferred  to  Spaniards  by  the  im- 
position of  a  prohibitory  tariff.  Reciprocity  will 
restore  a  most  remunerative  coast  trade. 

Rice,  moreover,  will  have  a  preferred  market 
under  Reciprocity,  and  it  is  a  staple  ai-ticle  of 
consumption  in  Cuba.  Southern  lumber,  al- 
ready a  large  industry  with  short  lines  of  com- 
munication with  the  island,  will  be  greatly 
benefited.  Coal,  which  is  now  a  great  South- 
ern product  at  the  very  door  of  Cuba,  will  be 
free  under  the  treaty.  The  low-grade  cotton 
fabrics  of  the  South  are  already  heavily  ex- 
ported to  lirazil  and  South  America.  A  large 
market  for  them  will  be  created  in  the  Spanish 
West  Indies  by  Reciprocity.  Cotton-seed  oil 
will  have  no  competition  in  the  Cuban  market. 
The  iron  products  of  the  South  are  also  favored 
by  the  recent  treaties  and  several  other  indus- 
tries. Reciprocitj^  is  not  a  sectional  policy. 
It  promotes  the  interests  of  all  the  productive 
intei-ests  of  the  Nation,  South  as  well  as  North. 


A  FEW  COLD  Facts. 
The  Free-Trade  press,  when  it  ventures  to 
say  anything  about  the  Reciprocity  treaties, 
makes  the  wildest  misstatements.  One  journal, 
for  example,  has  lemarked  that  the  United 
States  already  supplies  three-fifths  of  Cuba's 
total  consumption  of  flour,  that  we  had  the 
best  of  her  commerce  without  Reciprocity,  and 
that  our  exporters  "  would  do  better  to  rely 
upon  their  natural  advantages  than  to  count  too 
much  upon  this  defective  Reciprocity'  agree- 
ment." Now  let  us  see  what  are  the  facts 
about  flour.  Before  July  1,  1S90,  our  export- 
ers did  send  to  Cuba  about  one-half  of  the  flour 
which  it  consumed.  This  was  done  even  with 
a  discrimination  of  about  $4  50  a  Ijarrel  in 
favor  of  Spanish  flour.  But  at  that  date  Span- 
ish flour  not  only  became  absolutely  free  under 
the  sliding  scale  of  reductions  which  had  be- 
gun about  1883,  but  20  per  cent  was  added 
to  the  existing  duties  on  American  flour.  This 
brought  the  discrimination  against  American 
flour  up  to  ?5  62  1-2  a  barrel.  The  effect  of 
this  increase  of  duties  is  shown  in  the  follow- 
ing table  made  up  from  information  fiumshed 
to  us  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department: 

EXPORT    OP    FLOUK    TO    CUBA. 

Period.  Barrels.  Value. 

rear  er.dins  June  30,  ,1889....; 24,.3,15,S  $1,190,494 

year  ending  Jdeg  3''.  1890 255,320  1,]64,.538 

Half-year  ending  June  30,  1891....     40,764  214,503 

Instead,  then,  of  having  thiee-fifths  of  the 
flour  trade  of  Cuba  when  the  Reciprocity  Treaty 
was    negotiated,    we    were   rapidly    losing    the 


market,  only  a  small  amount  of  the  highest 
grade  being  used  by  the  bakers  to  mix  with 
Spanish  flour.  In  place  of  having  the  best  of 
the  commerce  in  breadstuffs  without  Reci- 
procity, we  were  going  from  bad  to  worse.  The 
discrimination  of  $4  5  0  not  sufficing  to  bring 
in  Spanish  floui-  in  competition  with  American, 
the  duty  was  raised  to  S5  62  1-2  in  order  to 
drive  .us  out  of  the  market  altogether.  What  is 
true  of  breadstuffs  applies  equally  to  all  other 
imports  of  the  island.  Twenty  per  cent  was 
added  on  July  1,  1891,  to  tiie  duties  on  all 
imports  from  other  countries  than  Spain. 

In  the  face  of  these  facts  how  preposterous 
is  the  Free-Trade  journal's  statement  that  om- 
exporters  "  would  do  better  to  rely  upon  their 
natural  advantages  than  to  count  too  much  upon 
this  defective  Reciprocity  agreement."  If  they 
had  been  forced  to  do  that,  they  would  have 
been  driven  out  of  the  market.  Reciprocity 
has  intervened,  and  the  duty  on  American  flour 
is  reduced  from  $5  62  1-2  to  90  cents.  That 
■will  give  our  exporters  absolute  control  of  the 
market.  If  $4  50  did  not  avail  to  keep  out 
Ameriran  flour,  90  cents  will  be  merely  a  reve- 
nue duty  imposed  on  a  largely  increased  im- 
portation into  the  island.  Reciprocity  will 
cheapen  enormously  the  cost  of  living  in  the 
island  and  double  the  consumption  of  all  food 
products.  As  the  treaty  contains  a  long  free 
list  and  reductions  of  50  and  25  per  cent  on 
large  classe?  of  manufactures,  it  will  add  ma- 
terially to  the  volume  of  the  American  export 
trade. 

THE    MAUYLAND    I'LATFOUM. 

The  Maryland  Democracy  at  its  State  Con- 
vention recently  put  into  concrete  expressions 
all  the  cuirent  Democratic  falsehoods  con- 
cerning the  so-called  surplus  and  the  "  bill- 
ion-doliar  Congre.ss."  These  falsehoods  are  as 
ingenious  as  they  are  knavi.sh.  We  quote  them 
here  exactly  as  thej'  were  put  in  the  Maryland 
platform :  ' 

President  Harrison  and  a  Republican  Congress  found 
in  1889  a  large  surplus  in  tbe  Treasury,  left  by  an 
economical  Democratic  Administration.  That  surplus 
told  a  plain  tale  to  tlie  people  of  tbe  United  States.  It 
demonstrated  tliat  the  taxes  which  had  been  imposed 
by  Republican  legislation  were  in  excess  of  the  actual 
needs  of  a  Government  economically  administered,  and 
were  therefore  unnecessary  and  unjust.  The  people 
supposed  that  the  evil  would  be  remedied  by  a  sulliclejit 
and  well-considered  reduction  of  these  taxes  and 
by  the  strict  application  of  the  surplus  to  the  payment 
of  the  public  debt.  They  were  disappointed.  The 
Bnaiices  of  the  country  were  mismanaged  and  wild 
speculations  and  commercial  disasters  followed  in  the 
tra'n  of  such  miima-a^emeit.  Th?  surplus  was  wast?d 
by  extravagant  expenditures.  The  unjust  and  un- 
necessary taxation  of  the  people  continued.  The 
List  Congress  appropriated  in  the  money  and  credit 
of  the  people  more  than  a  billion  of  dollars.  It  would 
seem  to  have  been  the  deliberate  purpose  of  the  man- 
agers of  the  Republican  party  to  maintain  and  create  an 
amount  of  public  Indebtedness  wliich  would  consume 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    VEAK. 


any  surplus  wlilcli  might  accumulate  under  the  existing 
tariff  aud  make  a  fuitlici'  incr6a:>e  in  the  taxation  01 
Imports  necessary  fur  tliw  support  of  tlie  Goveriimeat. 

Mow,  what  are  tlie  honest  facts  as  to  this 
business?  The  liebelJion  lelt  the  United  States 
with  a  burden  of  debt  amounting  in  1807  to 
$2,67s,1:;G,1U3  s7.  Fioiii  that  time  until  to- 
day it  hits  been  the  policy  of  the  Government 
to  collect  more  revenues  than  were  inquired  for 
the  actual  expenses  of  administration,  applying 
the  sujplus  reventies  to  the  reduction  of  this 
debt.  On  March  4,  1SS5,  wnen  Grover  Cleve- 
land eiiteied  the  White  House,  he  found  an 
available  surplus  of  exactly  §21,031,381  67. 
He  foiuid  that  during  the  eighteen  years  of 
liepublican  Adniinistiatiou  from  1807  to  1885 
the  outst:indiug  principal  of  the  public  debt 
had  been  reduced  from  i^2, 078, 120, 103  87  to 
$l,803,iiC4,S73  14.  The  annual  interest  charge 
had  fallen  from  §138,892,45139  in  1807  to 
§47,014,133  in  1885,  and  tbe  per  capita  debt 
from  §09  20  to  §24  50.  In  the  four  years  pre- 
ceding Uruver  Clevelaiid's  term  of  office,  that 
is,  from  March  4,  1881,  to  March  4,  1885,  the 
face  of  the  bonded  debt  had  been  reduced  in  the 
sum  ol  !;;479,983,28U,  an  aveiage  annual  re- 
duction of  §12U,000,00U  !  This  was  dune,  as 
any  Democrat  may  see,  by  collecting  just  that 
much  more  money  than  was  needed  for  the  cur- 
rent operations  of  the  Government,  on  the  the- 
ory that  an  honest  people  wished  to  pay  their 
honest  debts  as  rapidly  as  they  could. 

iJut  -Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  party  had  a  tariff 
.plan  that  was  not  in  hai-mony  with  this  theory. 
They  were  deadset  for  Free  Tiade,  and,  as  a 
means  of  working  up  public  sentiment  in  support 
of  their  Scheme,  they  stopped  paying  the  public 
debt  except  as  they  wei-e  absolutely  conipelleu 
to.  They  hoarded  these  surplus  revenues,  and 
summoned  the  country  .to  witness  how  grievous- 
ly It  wa^s  being  taxed  by  the  Republican  tariff, 
lU'ging  as  the  remedy  for  that  iniquitous  state 
of  tilings  their  phut  of  Free  Trade.  But  even 
in  tneir  statement  of  the  size  of  the  so-called 
-suipltts  they  were  dishonest.  By  juggling  with 
the  debt  statement  they  were  able  to  make  the 
-surplus  at  one  time  fifty  millions,  at  another  a 
huncb-ed.  They  even  got  it  up  as  far  as  a 
rhundred  and  twenty.  But,  a  though  the  re- 
ceipts of  the  Govertimeut  diuing  Cleveland's 
term  .grew  larger  .each  .year,  and  although  he 
reduced  the  bonded  debt  only  §341,396,980, 
or  exactly  §138,586,300  less  than  it  had  been 
reduced  by  Arthur  ^vith  smaller  revenues  at  his 
•command,  yet  so  extravagant  were  the  appro- 
priations of  Cle.veland's  two  Demociatic  Con- 
vgresses  that  his  surplus  on  March  4,  1889,  when 
he  gave  way  to  Harrison,  was  only  §48,096,- 
158  50,  or  only  §26,404,876  83  more  than 
the  sum  left  Mm  by  President  Arthur !  In 
other  words,  if  he  had  _paid  as  much  of  the  debt 
.as  Arthur  did  he  would  not  ha^•e  had  a  surplus 
.at  all,  but  a  dehcit  of  §90,000,000. 


This,  then— §48,096,158  50— is  the  boasted 
Cleveland  surplus,  left  in  the  Treasury,  accord- 
ing to  the  Maryland  Cimvention,  "  by  an  eco- 
nomical Democratic  Administration,"  teUing  a 
plain  tale  of  over-taxation,  etc.  Now,  say  the 
Maryland  Democrats,  the  people  supposed  thlt 
this  shi>cking  condition  would  be  remedied  by 
Mr.  Harrison  and  his  Republican  Congress ;  but 
the  people  vrere  disappointed ;  the  siu'plus  was 
not  spent  in  reducing  the  public  debt  as  it 
should  have  been,  but  was  wasted  in  the  ex- 
ti-avagant  expenditures  of  a  Congress  which  ap- 
propriated more  than  a  billion  of  dollars ;  the 
revenues  were  not  reduced,  but  unjust  over- 
taxation was  continued.  These  charges  are  the 
current  Democratic  allegation,  and  they  con- 
stitute the  capital  on  which  the  Democracy  pro- 
poses to  contest  the  next  National  election.  And 
every  one  of  them  is  a  falsehood  !  The  surplus 
and  six  times  the  surplus  has  been  paid  under 
Harrison  in  the  liquidation  of  the  pubUc  debt. 
The  surplus,  as  Cleveland  left  it,  was  §48,- 
096,158  50.  The  amount  of  the  bonded  debt 
discharged  under  Harrison  up  to  Jtme  30,  1891, 
was  §234.009,040.  In  two  years  and  four 
months  he  has  reduced  the  per  capita  debt 
from  .§24  50,  where  Cleveland  left  it.  to 
§12  87,  where  it  is  to-day.  This  is  the  financial 
management  which  the  Democrats  claim  has 
caused  commercial  panics  and  disasters.  As 
ever.y  sthaulboy  knows,  the  distress  of  last  year 
«as  mainly  caused  by  failure  of  crops  and  the 
Baring  failure  in  London,  and  was  relieved  and 
dissipated  here  by  just  the  policy  that  the  Mary- 
laud  platform  attacks.  The  List  Congress  did 
not  ai^iopriate  ••  over  a  billion  of  dollars,"  but 
just  exactly  exactly  §988,410,129,  or  §170,- 
440,209  more  than  the  Lth  Congress.  Of  this 
excess  §25,321,907  was  for  a  pension  deficiency 
which  the  Democrats  of  that  Congress  dishon- 
estly left  unpaid;  §22,667,343  58  was  for  post- 
office  bills,  three-fourths  of  ■nhich  mil  be  re- 
tiu-ned  to  the  Treasury  ;  §7,307,146  70  was  for 
the  purchase  of  Indian  lands  that  will  sell  for 
three  tuna5  their  cost;  §14,042,344  09  was  to 
meet  contracts  for  naval  vessels  theretofore 
authorized,  and  §62.668,530  99  to  pay  new 
.pensions  under  the  new  act  authorized  by  the 
people  in  1888.  The  balance  went  in  census 
expenses,  harbor  defences  and  impix)vements 
and  World's  Fair  appropriations.  As  to  the 
i-evenues,  they  were  reduced,  and  unjust  taxa- 
tion was  not  continued.  As  we  have  already 
demonstrated  in  these  columns,  the  people  are 
enjoying  under  the  McKinley  bill  a  gieater  vol- 
ume of  trade  than  ever  before  while  they  are 
paying  less  taxes. 

It  is  thus  that  the  honest  truth  disposes  of 
Democratic  outcry.  The  figtu-es  we  have  given 
are  eveiy  one  official,  and  they  prove  that  the 
Democratic  hes  about  the  wasted  surplife,  the 
billion-dollar  appropriations  and  the  continued 
over-taxation  are  utterly  reckless. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    'iT'^AE. 


NEW  TREATIES. 


RECIPROCITY  WITH  SPAIN. 


TEXT    OF   THE   TREATY. 


THE  PORTS    OF    CUBA    AND    POBTO    RICO    OPENED 

TO  AMERICAN  PRODUCTS— SPAIN   MEETS  THE 

UNITED     STATES    HALF    WAT— TOBACCO 

TO    BE    CONSIDERED    SEPARATELY. 

Washington,  July  31.— The  Spanish  Eeoiprocity 
Treaty  and  the  diplomatic  correspondence  in  re- 
gard to  it  were  made  public  to-day.  The  follow- 
ing is   the   President's   proclamation : 

RECIPROCITY  WITH   SPAIN. 

BT    THE    PRESIDENT    OP    THE    UNITED    STATES— 

A    PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas,  pursuant  to  Section  3  ol  the  Act  of  Con- 
gress approved  October  1,  1890,  entitled  "An  act 
to  reduce  tlie  revenues  and  equalize  duties  on  im- 
ports, and  for  otlier  purposes,"  the  Secretary  of  State 
of  tlie  United  States  of  America  communicated  to  tile 
Government  of  Spain  tlie  action  of  tlie  Congress  of  the 
Unfted  States  of  America,  with  a  view  to  secure  re- 
ciprocal trade  in  declaring  the  articles  enumerated  in 
said  Section  3,  to  wit,  sugars,  molasses,  coffee  and 
liides,  to  be  exempt  from  duty  upon  tlieir  importation 
into  tlie  United  States  of  America ; 

And  whereas,  the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Spain  at  Wasliington  has  commu- 
nicated to  the  Secretary  of  State  the  fact  tliat,  in  reci- 
procity and  compensation  for  the  admission  into  tlie 
United  States  of  America,  free  of  all  duties,  of  the 
articles  enumerated  in  Section  3  of  said  act,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Spain  will,  by  due  legal  enactment,  and  as 
a  provisional  measure,  admit,  from  and  alter  September 
1,  1891,  Into  all  the  established  ports  of  entry  of  the 
Spanish  Islands  of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  the  articles 
or  merchandise  named  in  the  following  transitory 
schedule,  on  the  terms  stated  therein,  provided  that  the 
same  be  the  product  or  manufacture  of  the  United 
States  and  proceed  directly  from  the  ports  of  said 
States : 

TRANSITORY    SCHEDULE. 

Prbducts  or  manufactures  of  the  United  States  to  be 
admitted  into  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  free  of  duties  : 

1.  Meats,  in  brine,  salted  or  smoked,  bjcon,  hams, 
and  meats  pres(«rved  in  cans,  in  lard,  or  by  extraction 
of  air :  jerhed  beef  excepted. 

2.  Laixl. 

3.  Tallow  and  other  animal  greases,  melted  or 
crude,  unmanufactured. 

4.  Fish  and  shellfish,  live,  fresli,  dried,  in  brine, 
smohed,  plcUled;  oysters  and  salmon  in  cans. 

5.  Oats,  barley,  rye  and  buclnvheat,  and  flour  of 
tlieso  cereals. 

6.  Starch,  maizena  and  other  alimentary  products 
of  corn,  except  corn  meal. 

7.  Cottonseed,  oil,  and  meal  cahe  of  said  seed  for 
cattle. 

8.  Hay,  straw  for  forage  and  bran. 

9.  Pruits,  fresh,  dried  and  preserved,  except 
raisins. 

10.  Vegetables  and  garden  products,  fresIi  and 
dried. 

11.  Resin  of  pine,  tar,  pitch  and  turpentine. 


12.  Woods  of  all  kinds,  in  tninlts  or  logs,  joists., 
rafters,  planlis,  beams,  boards,  round  or  cjhndric- 
masts,  although  cut,  planed  and  tongued  and  grooved, 
including  flooring. 

13.  Woods  for  cooperage,  including  staves,  head- 
ings and  wooden  hoops. 

14.  Wooden  bo.tes,  mounted  or  unmounted,  except 
of  cedar. 

15.  Woods,  ordinary,  manufactured  into  .doors, 
frames,  windows  and  sllutters,  without  paint  or  var- 
nish, and  wooden  houses,  unmounted,  without  paint 
or  varnish. 

16.  Wagons  and  carts  for  ordinary  roads  and  agri- 
culture. 

17.  Sewing  machines. 

18.  Petroleum,  raw  or  unrefined,  according  to  the 
classification  fixed  in  the  existing  orders  for  the  im- 
portation of  tills  article  In  said  islands. 

19.  Coal,  mineral. 

20.  Ice. 

Products  or  manufactures  of  the  United  States  to  be- 
admitted  into  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  on  payment  of  the 
duties  stated : 

21.  Corn  or  maize,  25  cents  per  100  liilogi'ammes. 

22.  Corn  meal,  23  cents  per  100  kilogrammes. 

23.  Wheat,  from  January  1,  1892.  30  cents  per  lOO- 
Idlogrammes. 

24.  Wheat  flour,  from  January  1,  1893,  $1  per  100- 
liilogi'ammes. 

Products  or  manufactures  of  the  United  States  to  be 
admitted  into  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  at  a  reduction  of 
25  per  centum ; 

25.  Butter  and  cheese. 

26.  Petroleum,  refined. 

27.  Boots  or  shoes  in  whole  or  In  pari;  of  leather 
shins. 

And  whereas,  the  Envoy  Extraordinary  and; 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Spain  In  Washing- 
ton has  further  communicated  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  that  tlia  Government  of  Spain. 
will,  in  hlie  manner  and  as  a  definitive  ar- 
rangement, admit,  from  and  after  July  1,  1892,  into. 
aU  the  established  ports  of  entry  of  tlie  Spanish 
Islands  of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,,  the  articles  of  mer- 
chandise named  in  the  following  schedules- -A.,  B,  C  and. 
D,  on  the  terms  stated  therein,  provided  that  the  same 
be  the  product  or  manufiicture  of  'ne  United  States 
and  proceed  dire<!tly   from   the  ports   of  said  States :. 

SCHEDULE  A. 

Products  or  manufactures  of  the  United  States  to  bei 
admitted  into   Cuba  and  I'orto  Efto  free  of  duties : 

1.  Marble,  jasper  and  alal>aster,  natural  or  ar- 
tificial, in  rough  or  in  pieces,  dressed,  squared  and. 
prepared   for   talving   shape. 

2.  Other  stones  and  earthy  matters,  including  ce- 
ment, employed  in  building,  the  arts  and  industries. 

3.  Waters,    meneral   or   medicin.a). 

4.  Ice. 

5.  Coal,  mineral. 

6.  Rosin,  tar,  pitch,  turpentine,  asphalt,  schist, 
and  bitumen. 

7.  Petroleum,  raw  or  crude,  in  accordance  with  the^ 
elassiflcaUon  fixed  in  the  tarlfl'  of  said,  islands. 

8.  Clay,  ordinary,  in  paving  tiles  large  and  small, 
briclis  and  roof  llles  unglazed,  for  the  constniction  of 
buildings,  ovens  and  other  siimilaij  pui"poscs. 

9.  Gold  and  silver  coin. 

10.  Iron,  cast  in  pigs,  and  old  iron  and  steel. 

11.  Iron,  cast  in  pipes,  beams,  raters  and  similar- 
articles,  for  the  construction  of  buildings,  and  in 
ordinary   manufactures.      (See  repertory.) 

12.  Iron,  -wrought  and'  steel,  in  bars,  'rails  an* 
bars  of  all  kinds,  plates,  beams,  rafters  and  other- 
similar  articles  for  construction  of  buildings. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


7i 


13.  iron,  wiouglit,  ami  steel,  In  wire,  nails,  screws, 
Duts  and  pipes. 

1-t.  Iron,  wrought,  and  steel.  In  ordinary  man- 
ufiiotiires  and  wire  clotli  unmanufactured.  (See 
repertory.) 

15.  Cotton,  raw,  witli  or  without)  seed. 

16.  Cottonseed,  oil  and  meal  caltc  of  same  for 
cattle. 

17.  Tallow  and  all  utlier  animal  greases,  melted  or 
crude,  unmanufactured. 

18.  Itoohs  and  pamphlets,  printed,  bound  and  un- 
bound. 

10.  Woods  of  all  Ulnds,  in  tmnbs  or  logs,  Joists, 
raft/crs,  planlts,  beams,  boards  and  round  or  cyllndrlc 
masts,  altliouph  cut,  planed,  tongued  and  grooved. 
Including  flooring. 

20.  Wooden  cooperage.  Including  staves,  headings 
and  wooden  lioops. 

21.  Wooden  boxes,  mounted  or  unmounted,  except 
of   cedar. 

22.  Woods,  ordinary,  manufactured  Into  doors, 
frames,  windows  and  sliultars,  without  paint  or  var- 
nisli,  and  wooden  houses,  unmounted,  without  paint 
or   varnlsli. 

23.  Woods,  ordinary,  manufactured  into  all  hinds 
of  articles,  turned  or  unturned,  painted  or  varnished, 
except  furniture.      (See   repeit<iry.) 

24.  Manures,  natural  or  artiticiaJ. 

25.  Implements,  utensils  and  t<J0ls  for  agriculture, 
the  arts  and  mechanical  trades. 

2(j.  Machines  and '  apparatus,  agrlcnltural,  motive, 
industrial  and  scientific,  of  all  classes  and  materials. 
and  loose  pieces  for  the  same,  including  wagons, 
carts  and  hand-carts  for  ordinary  roads  and  agri- 
culture. 

27.  Material  and  articles  for  public  worhs.  such  as 
railroads,  tramways,  roads,  canals  for  irrigation  and 
navigation,  use  of  waters,  ports,  lighthouses,  and  civil 
construction  of  general  utility,  when  introduced  by 
authorization  of  the  Government,  or  if  free  admission 
is  obtained  in  accordance  with  local  laws. 

28.  Materials  of  all  classes  for  the  constiuctlon. 
repair,  in  whole  or  In  part,  of  vessels,  subject  to 
specific  regulations  to  avoid  abuse  In  tlie  importation. 

20.  Meats,  in  brine,  salted  and  smolted.  including 
bacon,  hams,  and  meats  preserved  in  cans,  in  lard,  or 
by  extraction  of  air:  jerhed  beef  excepted. 

30.  Lard  and  butter. 

31.  Cheese. 

32.  Fish  and  shelUisli,  live,  fresh,  dried,  in  brine, 
salted,  smohed  and  pickled ;  oysters  and  salmon  in 
cans. 

33.  Oats,  barley,  rye  and  buckwheat,  and  flour  of 
these  cereals. 

34.  Starch,  maizena  and  other  alimentary  products 
of  corn,  except  corn  meal. 

35.  Fruits,  fresh,  dried  and  preserved,  except 
raisins. 

3G.  Vegetables  and  garden  products,  fresh  and  dried. 

37.  Hay,  straw  for  forage,  and  bran. 

38.  Trees,  plants,    shrubs  and  garden    seeds. 

39.  Tan  bark. 

SCHEDULE    B. 

Products  of  manufactures  of  the  United  States  to 
be  admitted  into  Cuba  and  Porto  Kico  on  payment 
of  the  duties  stated : 

40.  Corn  or  maize,  25  cjnts  per  100  kilogrammes. 

41.  Corn  meal,  25  cents  per  100  kilogrammes. 

42.  Wheat.   30  cents   per  100   kilogrammes. 

43.  Wheat  flour,    SI   per   100  kilogrammes. 

44.  Carriages,  cars  and  otlier  vehicles  for  railroads 
or  tramways,  where  authorization  of  the  Government 
for  free  admission  has  not  been  obtained,  1  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 


SCHEDUUE    C. 

Hoducts  of  manuLictui-es  of  the  United  States  to 
be  admitted  into  Cuba  and  Porto  HIco  at  a  reduction 
of  duty   of  50  per  centum  : 

45.  Marble,  Jasper  and  alabaster,  of  all  kinds,  cut 
Into  flags,  sliibs  or  steps,  and  the  same  worked  or 
carved  lu  all  kinds  of  articles,  polished  or  not. 

40.  Glass  and  crystal  ware,  plate  and  window  glass, 
and   the   sjime   silvered,   quicksilvered  and   platinized. 

47.  Clay  In  tiles,  large  and  small,  and  mosaic  for 
pavements,    colored   tiles,    roof  tiles   glazed  and  pipes. 

48.  Stoneware  and  fine  earthenware,  and  porcelain. 

411.  Iron,  cast,  in  fine  manufacturfci  or  those  pol- 
ished, with  coating  of  porcelain  or  part  of  other 
meliils.      (See    repertory.) 

50.  Iron,  wrought,  and  steel.  In  axles,  tires,  surlngs 
and   wheels    for    carriages,    rl\ets   and    their   «ashei-». 

51.  Iron,  wrought,  and  steel.  In  fine  manufa/'^tures 
or  those  polished,  with  ccKitlng  of  porcelain  or  part 
of  other  metals,  not  expi-essly  comprised  in  other 
numbers  of  these  schedules,  and  platform  scales  for 
weighing.      (See    repertory.) 

32.  Needles,  pins,  lujlves,  table  and  carving,  razors, 
penknives,  scissors,  pieces  for  watches  and  other  similar 
articles  of  iron  and  steel. 

53.  Tin  plate  In  sheets  or  manufactured. 

54.  Copper,  bronze,  brass  and  nickel,  and  alloys  of 
same  with  common  metals,  in  lumps  or  bars,  and 
all   manufactures  of  the  same. 

55.  All  other  common  melajs  and  alloys  of  the 
same.  In  lumps  or  bars,  and  all  manufactures  of  the 
same,  plain,  varnished,  gilt,  silvered  or  nickeled. 

50.  Furnltui-e  of  all  kinds,  ol  wood  or  metiL  in- 
cluding school  furniture,  blaekboards  and  other  ma- 
terials for  schools,  and  all  kinds  of  articles  of  fine 
woods  not  expressly  comprised  In  other  numbers  oi 
these   schedules.     (See   repertory.) 

57.  Ku.shes.  esparto,  vegetable  hair,  broom  com, 
willow,  straw,  palm  and  other  simUar  materials,  manu- 
factui-ed  into  ai'ticles  of  all  kinds. 

58.  Pastes  for  soups,  rice,  flour,  biead  and  crackers, 
and  alimentary  farinas,  not  comprised  in  other  nnm- 
ber.s  of  these   schedules. 

59.  Preserved  alimentary  substances  and  canned 
goods,  not  comprised  in  other  numbers  of  these  sched- 
ules. Including  sausages,  stuffed  meats,  mustards, 
sauces,  pickle?,  jams  and  jellies. 

CO.  Itubber  and  gutta-percha,  and  manufactures 
thereof,  alone  or  mixed  with  other  substances  (except 
silk),  and  oilcloths  and  tarpaulin. 

61.  Eiee,  hulled  or  unhulled. 

SCHEDULE   D. 

Products  or  manufactures  of  the  United  Statss  to  be 
admitted  into  Cuba  and  Porto  Kico  at  a  i-eduction  of 
duty  of  25  per  centum: 

62.  Petroleum,  relined,   and  benzine. 

63.  Cotton  manufactured,  spun  or  twisted,  and  in 
goods  of  all  kinds,  woven  or  knit,  and  the  same  mlxedl 
with  otlier  vegetable  or  animal  fibres  in  wMcli  cotton 
is  an  equal  or  greater  component  part-,  and  clotlilng 
exclusively  of  cotton. 

64.  Rope,  cordage  and  twine  of  all  kinds. 

^  65.  Colors,    crude    and   prepared,   with   or   without 
oil.  inks  of  all  kinds,  shoe-blacking  and  varnishes. 

66.  Soap,    toilet,    and    perfumery.. 

67.  Medicines,  proprietary  or  patent,  and  all  others, 
and  drugs. 

68.  Stearine  and  tallow  manufactured-  in  candles. 

69.  Paper  for  printing,  for  decorating  rooms,  of 
wood  or  straw,  for  wrapping  and  packing,  and  bags- 
and  boxes  of  same,  sandpaper  and  pasteboard. 

70.  Leather  and  skins,  tanned,  dressed,  varnished 
or  japanned,  of  all  kinds,  including  sole  leather  or 
belting. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


71.  Boots  and  shoes  in  whols  or  in  part  of  leather 
or  sliins. 

72.  Trunks,  valises,  travelling  bass,  portfolios  and 
other  similar  articles  in  whole  or  in  part  of  leather. 

7R.   Harness  and  saddlery  of  all  liinds. 

74.  Watches  and  clocks,  of  ffold,  silver  or  other 
metals,  with  cases  of  stone,  wood  or  other  material, 
plain  or  ornamented. 

75.  Carriages  of  two  or  four  wheels  and  pieces  of 
the  same. 

It  is  understood  that  flour,  which  on  Its  exportation 
■from  the  United  States  has  been  favored  with  draw- 
backs, shall  not  share  in  the  foresoing  reduction  of 
dutr. 

The  provisional  arrangement  as  set  forth  in  the 
"  transitory  schedule"  shall  come  to  an  end  on  July 
1,  1892.  and  on  that  date  be  substituted  by  the  de- 
finitive arrangement  as  set  forth  in  schedules  A,  B,  C 
and  D. 

And  that  the  Government  of  Spain  has  further  pro- 
vided that  the  laws  and  regulations,  adopted  to  pro- 
tect its  revenue  and  prevent  fraud  in  the  declarations 
and  proof  that  the  articles  named  In  the  foregoing 
schedules  axe  the  product  or  manufacture  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  shall  place  no  undue  restrictions  on 
the  importer,  nor  impose  any  additional  charges  or  fees 
therefor  on  the  articles  imported. 

And  whereas,  the  Secretary  of  State  has,  by  my 
direction,  given  assurance -to  the  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Spain  at  Washington 
that  tlus  action  of  the  Government  of  Spain,  in  granting 
a.xemption  of  duties  to  the  products  and  manufactures 
of  the  United  States  of  America  on  their  importation 
into  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  Is  accepted  for  those  islands 
as  a  due  reciprocity  for  the  action  of  Congress  as  set 
forth  In  Section  3  of  sa-'d  act: 

Now.  therefore,  be  it  known  that  I,  Benjamin  Har- 
rison, President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  have 
caused  the  above-stated  modifications  of  the  tariff  laws 
of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  to  be  made  public  for  the  in- 
formation of  tlie  citizens  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  caused  the  seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 
Done  at  the  City  of  Waslilngton,  this  31st  day  of  July, 
1891,  and  of  the  Independence  ol  the  United  States  of 
America,  the  116th.  BENJAMIN  HARRISON. 

By  the  President :       WILLIAM  P.  WHARTON, 

Acting  Secretary  of  State. 


THE  SAN  DOMINGO  TREATY. 


IT  PROVIDES  FOR  RECIPROCAL  TRADE  WITH 
THAT  REPUBLIC. 


SUCCESSFUL  OUTCOME  OP  MR.  FOSTER'S  MISSION 
—THE   PRESIDENT'S    PROCLAMATION 

■WasMngton,  Aug.  I.— The  San  Domingo 
reoiprooity  treaty  and  the  diplomatic  oorrespond- 
■enoe  concerning  it  were  made  public  to-day.  The 
following  is  the  President's  proclamation: 

Whereas,  Pursuant  to  Section  3  of  the  Act  of  Con- 
gress approved  October  1,  1S90,  enlitled  "An  act  to 
■reduce  the  revenue  and  equalize  duties  on  imiports,  and 
tor  other  purposes,"  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States  of  America  communicated  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Dominican  Republic  the  action  of  the 
■Congress   of    the    United   States    of   America,   with   a 


view  to  secure  reciprocal  trade,  la  decliaring  the 
articles  enumerated  in  said  Section  3,  to  wit,  sugars, 
molasses,  collee  and  hides,  to  be  exempt  from  duty 
upon  their  importation  Into  the  United  States  of 
America. 

And  whereas,  The  Envoy  Extia'jrfllnary  and  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary  of  the  Dominican  Republic  at 
Washington  has  communicated  to  the  Special  Pleni- 
potentiary of  tlie  United  States  the  fact  that,  in  reci- 
procity and  compensation  lor  the  admission  into,  the 
United  States  of  America,  free  of  all  duty,  of  the  ai> 
tides  enumerated  in  Section  3  of  said  act,  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Dominican  Republic  will,  by  due  legal 
enactment,  admit,  from  and  alter  September  1,  1891. 
into  all  the  established  ports  of  entry  of  the  Dominican 
Republic,  the  articles  or  merclindise  named  in  the  fol- 
lowing schediiles,  on  the  terms  stated  therein,  provided 
that  the  same  be  the  product  or  manufacture  of  the 
United  States  and  proceed  directly  fi'om  tlie  ports  of 
said  States: 

SCHEDULE    A. 

Articles  to  be  admitted  free  of  duty  into  the  Domin- 
ican Republic : 

1.  Animals,  live. 

2.  Meats  of  all  kinds,  salted  or  In  brine,  but  not 
smoked. 

3.  Corn  or  maize,  cornmeal  and  starch. 

4.  Oats,  barley,  rye  and  buckwheat,  and  flour  of 
these  cereals. 

5.  Hay,  bran  and  straw  for  forage. 

6.  Trees,  plants,  vines  and  seeds  and  grains  of  all 
kinds  for  propagation. 

7.  Cottonseed  oil  and  meal-cake  of  same. 

8.  Tallow  in  cake  or  melted,  and  oil  for  machinery, 
subject  to  examination  and  proof  respecting  the  use  of 
said  oil. 

9.  Resin,  tar,  pitch  and  turpentine. 

10.  Manures,  natural  and  artificial 

11.  Coal,  mineral. 

12.  Mineral  waters,  natural  and  artificial. 

13.  Ice.  J 

14.  Machines,  Including  steam  engines  and  those  of 
all  other  kinds,  and  parts  of  the  same,  implements  and 
tools  for  agricultural,  mining,  manufaoturlng,  indus- 
trial and  scientific  purposes.  Including  carts,  wagons, 
hand-carts  and  wheelbarrows,  and  parts  of  the  same. 

15.  Material  for  the  equipment  and  construction  of 
railroads. 

16.  Iron,  cast  and  wrought,  and  steel  In  pigs,  bars, 
rods,  plates,  beams,  rafters  and  other  simUar  articles 
for  the  construction  of  buildings,  and  In  wire  nails, 
screws  and  pipes. 

17.  Zinc,  galvanized  and  corrugated  Iron,  tin  and 
lead  in  sheets,  asbestos,  tar  paper,  tiles,  slate  and  other 
materials  for  roofing. 

18.  Copper  In  bars,  plates,  nails  and  screws. 

19.  Copper  and  lead  pipe. 

20.  Bricks,  firebricks,  cement,  lime,  artificial  stone, 
paving  tiles,  marble  and  other  stones  in  rough,  dressed 
or  polished,  and  other  earthy  materials  used  In  build- 
ing. 

21.  Windmills. 

22.  Wire,  plin  or  barbed,  for  fences,  with  hoolts, 
staples,  nails  and  similar  articles  used  In  the  construc- 
tion of  fences. 

23.  Telegraph  wire  and  telegraphic,  telephonic  and 
electric  apparatus  of  all  kinds  for  communication  and 
Illumination. 

24.  Wood  and  lumber  of  all  Idnds  for  building.  In 
logs  or  pieces,  beams,  rafters,  planks,  boards,  shingles, 
floorinB,  joists,  wooden-houses,  mounted  or  unmounted, 
and  accessory  parts  of  buildings. 

26.  Cooperage  of  all  Mnds,  Including  staves,  head- 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEXR. 


Ings  and  hoops,  barrels  and  boxes,   moniited  or  un- 
mounted. 

26.  Materials  for  ship  building. 

27.  Boats  and  Ughlers. 

28.  .School  furniture,  blaclibonrds  and  other  articles 
exclusively  for  the  use  of  schools. 

•29.  lioolis,  bound  or  unbound,  pamphlets,  newspa- 
pers and  printed  matter,  and  paper  for  printing  news- 
papers. 

30.  Printers'  Init  of  all  rolors,  type,  leads  and  all 
accessories  for  printing. 

.31.   Sacks,  empty,  for  paclslng  sugar. 

32.  Gold  and  silver  coin  and  bullion, 

SCHEDULE  B. 

Articles  to  be  admitted  into  the  Dominican  Republic 
at  a  reduction  of  duty  of  25  per  centum  : 

33.  Meats  not  Included  In  schv^dule  A  and  meat 
products  of  all  kinds,  except  lard. 

34.  liutter,   cheese  and  condensed   ji    canned  milk. 

35.  Fish  and  shellfish,  salted,  dried,  smoSed,  pickled 
or  preserved  in   cans. 

36.  Fruits  and  vegetables,  fresh,  canned,  dried, 
plclsled  or  presej-ved. 

37.  Manufactures  of  Iron  and  steel,  single  or  mixed, 
not  included  In  schedule  A. 

38.  Cotton,  manufactured,  spun  or  twisted,  and  In 
fabrics  of  all  kinds,  woven  or  knit,  and  the  same 
fabrics  mixed  with  other  vegetable  or  animal  fibres  In 
which  cotton  is  the  equal  or  greater  component  part. 

39.  Boots  and  shoes  In  whole  or  in  part  of  leather 
or  sliins. 

40.  Paper  for  writing,  in  envelopes,  ruled  or  blattk 
books,  wall  paper,  paper  for  wrapping  and  packlnc, 
tor  cigarettes.  In  cardboard,  boxes  and  bags,  sand  paper 
and  iiaste-board. 

41.  Tin  plate  and  tin  ware  for  arts,  industries,  and 
domestic  uses. 

42.  Coidage.  rope  and  twine  of  all  kinds. 

43.  Manufactures  of  wood  of  all  kinds  not  embraced 
In  sciiedule  A,  Including  wooden  ware-  implements 
for  household  use  and  furniture  In  wiiole  or  In  part 
of  wood. 

And  that  the  Government  of  the  Dominican  Republic 
has  further  provided  that  the  laws  and  regulations 
adopted  to  protect  its  revenue,  and  prevent  fraud  In 
the  declarations  and  proof  that  the  articles  named  In 
the  foregoing  schedules  are  the  product  or  manufacture 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  shall  place  no  undue 
restrictious  iipon  the  importer,  nor  Impose  any  addi- 
tional charges  or  fees  therefor  on  the  articles  imported. 

And  whereas,  the  Special  Plenipotentiary  of  the 
tJnited  States  has.  by  my  direction,  given  assurance  to 
the  Envoy  Extragrdinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  the  Dominican  Republic  at  Washington  that  this 
action  of  the  Government  of  the  Dominican  Republic  In 
granting  exemption  of  duties  to  the  products  and  man- 
nfactures  of  the  TJnited  States  of  America  on  their  im- 
portation into  the  Dominican  Republic  is  accepted  as 
a  due  reciprocity  for  the  auction  of  Congress  as  set  forth 
in  Section  3  of  said  act: 

Now,  therefore,  be  It  known  that  I,  Benjamin  Har- 
rison, President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  have 
caused  the  above  stated  modifications  of  the  tariff  laws 
of  the  Dominican  Republic  to  be  made  public  for  the 
information  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  caused  the  seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 
Done  at  the  City  of  Washington,  this  1st  day  of  Au- 
gust, 1891,  and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United 
States  of  America    the  116th. 

BENJAMIN   HARRISON. 

By  the  President :         WILLIAM  F.  WHARTON, 

.     .  Acting  Secretary   of  State, 


A    CANADIAN    FLIRTATION. 


WOOING    THAT    WILL    NOT    LEAD    TO    JA- 
MAICA'S UNDOING. 


A    POOR.    RELATION    THAT    WAS    ONCE    FL'JUTED. 

ARDENTLY        OODRTDD  —  THE        UNITED 

STATES    THE    RICH    COUSIN    IN 

THE    RECrBOCITT   PLAT. 

Kingston,  April  17.— Mr.  Froude  describes  the 
British  West  Indies  as  the  children  of  an  un- 
natural mother,  who  has  cast  them  off  and  allowed 
them  to  shift  for  themselves  as  poor  relations. 
Emancipation  instead  of  being  graduallj  intro- 
duced was  brought  on  with  such  precipitate  haste 
as  to  be  ruinous  to  the  colonial  planters.  When 
protection  was  demanded  against  rival  cane  pro- 
ducers in  countries  where  slaver.v  existed,  it  was- 
refused  on  the  ground  that  the  British  workman 
must  have  a  cheap  breakfast.  When  the  beet- 
root industry  was  established  in  Europe  under  ai 
liberal  system  of  Government  bounties,  another 
appeal  was  made  to  the  mother  State  for  aid  In 
rescuing  the  cane  planters  from  destructive  com- 
petition. Tlie  islands  had  ceased  to  have  a 
marketable  valUe  as  possessions  of  the  Crown 
and  the  Home  Government  wns  indifferent  to  their 
necessities  and  interests.  Despairing  of  receiving 
encouragement  from  the  United  Kingdom  the 
Islands  turned  for  assistance  to  the  United  .States. 
Meeting  with  cold  shoulders  everj'where  else, 
they  found  there,  as  Mr.  Froude  says,  a  hand  held 
out  to  them.  The  Americans  were  wUlintr,  though 
at  a  serious  loss  of  revenue,  to  admit  the  poor 
West  Indians  to  their  markets.  A  commercial 
treaty  alone  was  necessary ;  but  it  could  not  be 
made  without  the  sanction  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment, and  this  was  coldly  and  wantonly  refused,, 
to  use  Mr.  TFroude's  phrase,  "  on  some  fine-drawn 
crotchet,  to  colonies  which  were  weak  and  help- 
less." 

As  a  last  resort,  when  the  American  treaty  was 
disallowed,  a  delegation  was  sent  from  Jamaica 
to  Ottawa  and  an  urgent  appeal  was  made  for 
more  intimate  trade  relations  with  the  West  In- 
dies. The  Dominion  Government  sent  a  com- 
mission to  Kingston  to  find  out  if  anything  could 
be  done  and  Mr  Froude  met  him  there  whoUy  out 
of  humor  vsdth  Canada's  poor  relations.  '  The  Ja- 
maicans did  not  know  what  they  wanted,"  re- 
marked the  commissioner.  "They  were  without 
spirit  to  help  themselves ;  they  cried  out  to 
others  to  help  them,  and  if  all  they  asked  could' 
not  be  granted,  they  clamored  as  if  the  whole 
world  was  combining  to  hurt  them.  They  had 
a  fine  countr.v ;  soil  and  climate  all  that  could  be 
desired ;  they  had  aU  that  was  required  for  a 
quiet  and  easy  life.  Why  could  they  not  be 
content  and  make  the  best  of  things  ? "  "  Un- 
fortunate Jamaicans !"  exclaims  sympathetic  Mr. 
Froude.  "  The  old  mother  at  home  acts  liks  an 
unnatural  parent  and  will  neither  help  them  nor 
let  their  cousin  Jonathan  help  them.  They  turn 
for  comfort  to  their  big  brother  in  the  North,  and 


J3XVX    ioSUES    OF    AN    OFF     V'EAE. 


the  bie  brother  beins;  himself  robust  and  healthy 
gives  them  wholesome  advice." 

That  was  l>efore  Canada  Itself  was  hurt  and 
crippled  by  commercial  competition  and  the 
pressure  of  econoimio  law.  Now  the  attitude  of 
the  Dominion  has  changed.  It  is  wooing  and  ca- 
ressing the  West  Indians  and  fairly  embarrassing 
them  with  the  warmth  and  intensity  of  its 
aflfeotion  for  them.  The  flirtation  began  about 
the  time  of  the  passagp  of  the  McKinley 
TarifE  bill,  which,  while  a  generous  re- 
lief measure  for  the  Southern  countries,  involved 
Canada    in    material    loss    and    serious  hardship. 

When  the  West  Indian  delegation  was  sent  to 
Ottawa,  a  few  years  ago,  to  solicit  reciprocal 
trade  relations,  Canada  was  enjoying  large  com- 
mercial privileges  in  the  American  market.  Then 
her  Ministers  considered  West  Indian  trade  to  be 
one  of  very  little  account.  Jamaica  then  seemed 
to  them  to  be  a  long  way  off,  and  to  have  an  im- 
poverished, non-consuming  population  of  ig- 
norant blacks.  They  treated  the  delegation  with 
scant  couitesy  and  did  nothing  for  the  island.  It 
was  not  until  the  McICinley  tariff  bill  was  passed 
and  Canada  was  deprived  of  many  of  its  privi- 
leges in  the  American  market  that  the  Ministers 
began  to  take  any  interest  in  the  West  Indies. 
When  they  perceived  that  the  Dominion  was  badly 
hurt  by  tariff'  legislation  in  the  United  States,  they 
■cast  about  to  find  some  other  market  for  their 
surplus  produce.  Then  the  once-despised  Jamaica 
loomed  up  in  their  imagination  as  a  thrifty  and 
prosperous  island  tenanted  by  loyal  Britons,  and 
the  West  Indian  archipelago,  from  Trinidad  to 
Barbados,  frojn  Grenada  to  Dominica,  and  from 
Antigua  to  the  Bahamas,  assumed  the  importance 
of  a  commercial  empire  held  by  the  Queen's  wor- 
shipful subjects  of  the  same  breed  as  themselves. 
Then  it  seemed  the  most  natural  thing  in  the 
world  that  brethren  should  dwell  together  in 
unity  and  be  whojly  independent  of  the  United 
States,  which,  after  all,  was  not  a  larger  market, 
at  least  in  extent  of  territory,  than  British  North 
America  1 

The  Jamaica  Exhibition  opened  at  an  oppor- 
tune time  for  this  Canadian  demonstration.  It 
was  oiganized  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
playing the  industrial  resources  of  the  British 
West  Indies  land  attracting  European  capital 
and  immigration  to  a  neglected  CLuarter  of  the 
Empire.  The  invitation  to  the  United  States 
was  mysteriously  delayed  and  finally  extended 
with  so  little  tact  and  with  such  bungling  ir- 
regularity that  it  could  not  be  accepted  with  dig- 
nity. Canada  voted  a  large  appropriation  and 
;made  extensive  preparations  for  loudly  advertising 
itself  as  the  chief  industrial  State  in  North 
America.  Its  exhibit  was  the  largest  and  most 
pretentious  in  the  main  building,  and  not  only 
occupied  the  lion's  share  of  the  space  on  the 
floor  and  in  the  galleries,  but  also  called  into 
recLuisition  several  structures  and  side-shows 
outside.  It  was  a  complete  and  very  creditable 
display  of '  the  Dominion  fisheries,  manufactures, 
and  produce  of  field,  mine  and  forest.  It  was 
under  the  charge  of  an  active  and  intelligent 
staff,  which  ceased  not,  day  nor  night,  to  glorify 


the  Dominion  and  to  depreciate  the  value  of  the 
American  market  as  a  base  of  exchange  for  West 
Indian  products.  For  six  montlis  there  has  been 
a  most  determined  eft'ort  made  to  draw  Jamaica 
and  the  Windward  and  Leeward  groups  into  a 
specious  scheme  of  commercial  union  by  which 
Canada  will  have  everything  to  gain  and  the 
West  Indies  everything  to  lose.  In  this  remark- 
able propaganda  "The  London  Times"  has  lent 
aid,  for  it  has  recommended  that  Her  Majesty's 
possessions  in  North  America  and  the  West  Indies 
should  follow  the  example  of  the  South  African 
and  Australian  colonies,  and  form  a  customs  union 
for  mutual  advantage. 

The  Canadian  Minister  of  Finance,  Mr.  Foster, 
has  taken  an  active  part  in  this  commercial  raid 
upon  the  United  States.  Several  months  ago  he 
visited  Trinidad,  and  boldly  advocated  a  British 
Colonial  trade  bund.  Canada,  he  announced, 
would  be  willing  to  discriminate  in  favor  of 
West  Indian  products,  if  preferential 
advantages  were  offered  in  return.  It  could  sup- 
ply everything  that  was  imported  from  the  United 
States,  and  if  allowed  preferential  advantages  in 
the  West  Indies  it  would  put  differential  duties 
on  the  coffee,  sugar,  logwood  and  fruit  produced 
in  the  islands.  The  same  programme  was  un. 
folded  at  Barbados,  where  he  proposed  a  differ- 
ential of  about  25  per  cent  "as  a  first  go  off" 
on  duties  enforced  in  Canada  upon  West  Indian 
sugar,  and  a  corresponding  discrimination  in  favor 
of  oranges,  bananas  and  other  fruits.  In  return 
he  modestly  pleaded  for  an  equivalent  differential 
— "  only  this  and  nothing  more  "—by  which  the 
products  of  Canadian  seas,  mines,  farms  and  herds 
could  be  placed  on  a  preferential  footing  in 
Jamaica,  Barbados,  Trinidad  and  the  remaining 
islands.  When  he  arrived  at  Kingston  he  was 
less  explicit  in  his  proposals  for  commercial  reci- 
procity, but  even  more  grandiose  and  impassioned 
in  his  tributes  to  the  industrial  resources  and 
commercial  potentiality  of  Canada.  He  enlarged 
upon  the  imperial  domain  of  the  Dominion,  its 
magnificent  continental  line  of  railway  and  its 
subsidized  steamers  which  were  speedily  to  whiten 
every  sea.  He  contended  that  Canada  was  enter- 
ing upon  an  era  of  emigration  and  wonderful 
growth,  and  that  its  consumption  of  suger,  coffee, 
oranges  and  bananas  was  capable  of  enormous  ex- 
pansion. There  might  be  a  good  deal  of  ice  weU 
toward  the  North,  but  it  was  a  country  of  bound- 
less extent  and  enormous  resources,  and  could  . 
produce  cheapl.v  and  abundantly  nineteen-twen. 
tieths  of  the  merchandise  that  comes  from  the 
United  States  to  these  islands.  So  this  states- 
man's elastic  argument  ran  along  until  he  reached 
the  conclusion  that  the  Jamaicans  as  loyal  Britons 
and  practical  men  of  business  ought  to  make 
heavy  differential  reductions  on  the  duties  levied 
on  Canadian  merchandise,  and  to  be  content  to 
receive  in  return  a  corresponding  "go  off"  on 
sugar  and  fruit. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  humor  of  this  ex- 
travagant and  importunate  agitation  on  behalf  of 
Canauian  trade,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  the 
commercial  statistics  of  the  island  and  to  ascer- 
tain the  comparative  standing  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Dominion  as  iiuyers  and  sellers  lor 


lUU    ISSUliS    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


79 


tliis  market.  For  this  purijosc  1  have  coudonscU 
with  the  I'ollowiiig  result  the  latest  figures  printed 
by  the  (.iovernmeiit  and  supplied  by  the  cuuiteuus 
aud  etiicient  American  Consul,  Mr.  Kstes: 

lOllElUN    TUADE  WITH  JAMAICA. 


Buys. 

Greit    Brluln     $2,025,590 

Unitci   states    S.9U0,.;50 

Canada  183,775 

riance    19.1,795 

Oecnia  IT  197,505 

Otaier  Slates  303.016 


Sells. 

81,J22,21'0 

2,722.6.W 

7-'l,70'> 

2,150 

4,090 

114,513 

Total    $7,533,230  t7,987,990 

Hence  it  appears  tliat  Jlr.  Foster's  ambitious 
Dominion  lias  been  selling  to  Jamaica  four  times 
as  much  as  it  lias  been  buying,  yet  lias  the  assur- 
ance  to  demand  diflerential  advantages  by  which 
its  sales  may  be  increased  to  the  detriment  of 
the  L'uitcil  Stales.  He  lias  had  the  coolness, 
moreover,  to  bid  for  an  exclusive  arriingeuieiit  lor 
supplying  the  Jamaica  market  with  lireadstults, 
fish,  lumber,  coal  aud  various  classes  ot  manu- 
facture, when  the  United  States,  buys  from  Ja- 
maica twerity-oue  times  as  much  as  Canada,  aud 
sells  less  than  four  times  as  much.  He  malces 
this  overt  ure  on  the  extraordinary  assumption  that 
a  population  of  5,000,000  can  oiler  as  large  a 
market  for  coll'ee.  sugar  and  fruit  as  a  population 
ot  (ia. 000, 000.  The  ab.-iurdity  ot  this  claim  is  re- 
vealed by  the  following  exhibit  of  the  exports  of 
Jamaica : 

EXrOKTS    OF    JAMAICA— HOW    DISTRIBUTED. 


Unltea  .States. 

Canada.  Gi 
$15,510 
138,100 
7  015 
0.ts80 
2,910 
13, -'70 

•eat  Britain. 

Sucai-     

I'r  It  

SSl.vo.-) 

15  0,0  3 

KW.OOO 

12,105 

903.7.50 

Hum    , 

231,480 

Total , $3,906,550  $183,775        $2,(125,590 

The  United  States  supplies  a  market  for  nearly 
$4,000,000  of  a  total  export  of  something  over 
$7,500,000.  It  takes  one-half  as  much  again  as 
Oreat  Britain,  and  would  be  still  further  in  excess 
if  that  Country  did  not  take  almost  the  entire 
surplus  of  Jamaica  rum.  It  buys  nearly  three 
times  as  much  of  the  sugar  as  England  and  Can- 
ada together,  and  98  1-2  per  cent  of  the  fruit, 
leaving  to  them  the  teggarly  remnant.  Yet  Mr. 
Foster  and  the  Canadian  contingent,  who  have 
been  clamoring  for  a  diflerential  reciprocity  based 
upon  the  Dominion's  future  consumption  of  sugar 
and  fruit,  invite  .Tamaioa  to  discriminate  against 
the  United  States,  their  best  market,  in  the 
expectation  that  a  population  "which  now  takes 
$7,045  worth  of  fruit  will  suddenly  acquire  an 
appetite  for  §1,580.005  worth  of  it.  They  ask 
the  Jamaicans  to  adopt  this  policy  of  incredible 
foUj'  at  a  time  when  President  Harrison  has 
been  empowered  by  Congress  to  impose  discrim- 
inating duties  on  tropical  produce  from  countries 
which  continue  to  trade  with  the  United  States 
on  inequitable  terms..  The  adoption  of  the  Ca- 
nadian diflferentials  would  not  affect  the  export  of 
fruit  and  logwood  to  the  American  market,  but 
it  would  inevitably  shut  out  the  sugar  and  coffee. 
If  Jamaica  does  not  accept  the  reciprocity  pro- 
posals of  the  United  States,  and  President  Har- 
rison imposes  duties  after  January  1,  1892,  under 
the  schedule  provided  in  the  Aldrich  amendment, 
the  amount  of  differential  taxes  on  the  coffee, 
sugar  and  hides  exported  from  the  island  wUl  be 


as  shown  below,   on  the  basis  of  the  latest  com- 
mercial statistics : 

OPERATION    OF   RECIPROClTr   AMENDMENT. 

ExDOrt.  Dutv.  Amount 

-i'iz7,'?,i9  2?  ^"i'"'    ^■'s'^^-  P"  "> 9:120,749  60 

4,s.r2.2o4  m  colTee   3c.     p.r  m 1U907  0" 

18  801  Itj  lildoa    l^c.  per  lb '1:79  91 

$165,997  19 

In  the  face  of  this  menace,  which  would  at 
once  be  carried  into  execution,  it  would  be  an 
act  of  sheer  madness  if* Jamaica  were  to  favor 
an  insignificant  customer,  such  as  Canada  is,  at 
the  cx|)onsc  of  a  nation  of  63,000,000  consumers 
that  has  been  buying  freely  everything  produced 
on  the  island  with  the  single  exception  of  rum. 
The  Canadian  delegation  lias  mufle  a  great  noise 
over  the  thousands  ot  samples  of  bread  baked 
from  the  choicest  grades  of  Ca.uadian  flour  which, 
have  been  peddled  about  the  island  during  the 
Exhibition  period  ;  but  the  Jamaicans  know  that 
they  cannot  live  by  bread  that  is  cast  upon  the 
Wt'St  Indian  waters  to  be  returned  to  the  Dominion 
in  the  form  of  exclusive  trade  privileges.  Their 
bread  has  l)een  poor  because  they  have  persisted 
in  importing  cheaper  and  inferior  grades  ot  Ameri- 
can flour;  but  they  arc  well  aware  that  they  could 
have  better  bread  if  they  were  willing  to  pay 
$8  a  barrel  for  their  flour,  or  if  the  Government 
would  remove  the  import  duty  of  §2.  If  they 
were  to  lose  the  American  market  for  their 
produce,  they  would  not  be  able  to  buy  flour  from 
aii5'  quarter,  duty  or  no  duty. 

'the  Canadian  unreciprooal  trade  proposals  have 
not  been  taken  very  seriously.  Sir  Henry  Blake 
was  grateful  to  the  delegation  for  furnishing  so 
fine  an  exhibit  at  his  West  Indian  Fair,  and  has 
entertained  the  visitors  with  expansive  rhetoric 
and  hospitality ;  but  when  the  show  comes  to  an 
end  he  will  follow  his  solder  judgment,  and  be 
very  careful  to  avoid  openly  challenging  Presi- 
dent Harrison  to  convert  a  generous  offer  of 
commercial  reciprocity  into  a  menace  of  retalia- 
tion. That  offer  comes  from  a  nation  which  has 
been  the  salvation  of  Jamaica  and  the  West  Indies 
for  many  jears.  Behind  that  offer  is  a  market 
that  is  essentially  free.  With  the  exception  of 
oranges  and  tobacco  everything  produced  in 
Jamaica  enters  a  free  market  in  the  United  States. 
In  return  the  products  of  American  factories, 
farms  and  forests  are  heavily  taxed.  The  follow- 
ing exhibit,  which  Mr.  Estes  has  prepared  for 
me,  illustrates  the  inequitable  conditions  of  trade 
between  Jamaica  and  the  great  free  market  where 
a  large  share  of  its  exports  are  sold : 

IMPORTS  FROM  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Valuation.        Specific  duty. 
Quantity  imported.  £.        s.     d. 

141,208  bbls  flour 56,507      4      0      Ss.  per  bbL 

1,536,981  lt>  bread 4,010    18    10      6d.  100  ». 

567,800  m   butter 4,732      5      0     2d.  per  Iti. 

212,435  It)  ckeese 1,770      5    10      2d.  per ». 

86,911  ffi  ham 724      5      2      2d.  per  Iti. 

68,104  »  refined  sugar..-        563      0     8      2d.  per  in. 
6,501  in  bacon 54      3      6      2d.  per  It) 

18,427  bbls  salt  meat 13,820      5      0      8s.  per  bbl. 

2,801  M.  sliingles.: 856      6      0      6s.  per  M. 

4,009,419  feet  wliite  pine 1,804      4      8     9=.  per  M. 

3,475,380  feet  pltcb  pine 2.259      0      0    13s.  per  M. 

523.819   gal.    oil 19,643      4      3      8s.  per  bbl. 

19,931  m  tallow 62      5      8     34d.  per  1H. 

108,584  bush,   corn 1,809    14      8      4d.  per  buah, 

5.216  bush,  oats 86    18      8      4d.  per  busli. 

5,785  bush  peas,  beans..  96     8      4      4d.  per  bu^li, 

109,800    10      0 

The  United  States,  while  offering  a  very  large 


BIG    ISStlKS    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


measure  of  free  trade  to  the  West  Indies  and  the 
unrestricted  advantage  of  selling  in  the  largest 
and  best  market  in  the  world,  has  an  equitable 
right  to  demand  substantial  concessions  in  return. 
Jamaica  not  only  levies  an  export  duty  on  the 
sugar,  coffee  and  logwood  shipped  to  the  United 
States,  but  claps  a  tax  of  $2  on  every  barrel  of 
American  flour,  and  restricts  all  other  importations 
of  farm  produce  and  manufactures  by  high  spe- 
cific duties.  Sir  Henr^  Blake  during  the  last  si\: 
months  has  been  listening  with  a  rapt  air  to  the 
Canadian  cuckoo  eong,  and  has  scouted  the  idea 
of  making  concessions  to  the  United  States. 
Sometimes  he  has  seemed  almost  willing  to  be 
convinced  that  there  were  millions  of  fur-traders 
in  the  barren  stretches  of  Hudson's  Bay  territory 
athirst  for  Jamaica  rum  with  sugar  in  it,  and  that 
in  the  regions  toward  the  north  pole  there  were 
other  millions  of  Esquimaux  who  were  hungering 
alter  Jamaica  bananas  and  oranges  to  eat  with 
their  icecream;  but  he  is  a  practical  statesman, 
and  will  inevitably  be  released  from  his  illusions 
when  the  necessity  for  being  "polite  to  his  exhi- 
bition guests  and  patrons  passes.  Nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  the  superiority  of  the  American  mar- 
ket, with  ite  63,000,000  consumers.  Prac- 
ticaUy  it  is  a  free  market  for  tropical  produce, 
and  if  any  differentials  or  discriminations,  are  of- 
fered the  United  States  ought  to  have  the  ad- 
vantage rather  than  Canada,  which  already  sells 
to  Jamaica  far  more  than  it  buys.  Canada's 
successful  wooing  would  be  Jamaica's  undoing. 
The  Dominion  may  come  sighing  like  furnace 
and  -writing  sonnets  to  the  Queen  and  the  dusky 
maidens  of  the  tropics,  but  the  islanders  know 
that  it  is  only  a  desperate  attempt  to  raise  the 
wind.  As  "The  West  Indian"  has  expressed  the 
case:  "What  object  is  there  in  making  common 
cause  with  a  big  brother  who  flouted  us  when  we 
were  out  of  favor  with  a  rich  cousin,  but  who 
comes  and  knocks  at  our  door  and  wishes  to  hang 
his  hat  in  our  hall  and  put  his  walking-stick  in 
our  umbrella-stand  when  he  knows  that  the  rich 
cousin  now  smiles  upon  us  and  frowns  upon  him  ?" 

I.  N.  F. 


A  RECIPROCITY  STUDY. 


TEADB  OF  THE  BRITISH  WEST  INDIES. 


WITH    COMMENTS    UPON    CANADIAN    ASSURANCE 
AND  THE  DEVELOPMENT   OF  AN  ENLIGHT- 
ENED   AMERICAN   POXIOT. 

Kingston,  May  1.— Port  Eoyal  is  the  key  of 
the  West  Indian  Empire,  for  which  England  made 
great  sacrifices  and  won  imperishable  prestige 
on  the  ocean  in  her  historic  battle  for  supremacy 
with  Spain  and  France.  That  Empire  seemed  to 
have  been  lost  after  Yorktown,  when  the  power- 
ful French  fleet  was  supreme  among  the  Leeward 
and  Wir^ward  isHandsj  but  Eodney's  genius 
and  pluck  rescued  it  from  conquest  and  delivered 
.lamaica  from  invasion.  As  the  Empire  was 
left  after  that  great  sea  fight  off  the  mountain- 
peaks  of  Dominica,  it  has  remained  to  this  day, 
save   that  its   colonial  population  has  been   im- 


poverished, brought  to  the  verge  of  ruin  and  driven 
out  in  the  face  of  increasing  swarms  of  blacks. 
With  the  Bahamas  in  the  north,  Belize  on  the 
west,  and  the  Lesser  Antilles  in  the  east,  curving 
from  Puerto  Eico  for  000  miles  toward  the  mouth 
of  the  Orinoco  and  British  Guiana,  Port  Eoyal 
is  the  geographical  and  strategic  centre  of-  this 
once  prosperous  and  highly  prized  Empire.  With 
the  exception  of  the  mahogany  ana  logwoofl  clear- 
ings of  Belize,  it  is  essentially  a  blade  Empire.' 
The  whites  were  ruined  by  emancipation,  for 
which  gra.nts  of  $100,000,000  from  tlie  British 
exchequer  were  an  inadequate  compensation.  Theii 
great  industry  was  oheapraed  and  well  nigh  de- 
stroyed by  the  competition  of  European  beet 
sugar,  and  for  this  there  was  no  compen^sation 
in  bounties,  upon  which  the  rival  industry  was- 
fattening.  Immigration  from  England  ceased, 
long  ago ;  the  whites  are  rapidly  disappearing ; 
and  the  future  of  the  British  West  Indies  is 
largely  dependent  upon  the  negro's  laolc  of  ambi- 
tion! and  the  increasing  market  for  tropical 
produce  i.n  the  United  States. 

Nine  British  Governors  are  employed  to  direct 
the  destinies  of  this  West  Indian  Empire.  They 
draw  their  salaries,  respect  the  traditions  of  the 
(Colonial  Office,  entertain  the  officers  of  Her 
Majesty's  navy,  and  strive  to  conciliate  in  every 
possible  way  the  black  constituencies,  which  are 
ali'eady  conscious  of  their  growing  political  power. 
In  the  Bahamas  there  is  a  Governor  of  genuine 
creative  impulses,  who  is  bent  upon  supplying 
the  impoverished  islands  with  a  new  industry ; 
in  Jamaica  there  is  another  who  has  organized 
an  exhibition  and  encouraged  rash  speculations 
in  hotel  building ;  but  in  the  main  these  function- 
aries are  content  to  wind  and  unwind  the  red- 
tape  spools  of  the  Colonial  Office.  They  are 
drawn  helplessly  along  in  the  drift  of  West 
Indian  tendencies.  There  has  been  constant  ex- 
perimenting with  constitutions  and  franchises.  In 
Jamaica  there  is  a  legislative  council  of  nominated 
and  elected  members,  in  equal  voting  strength, 
with  a  veto  power  vested  in  the  Governor,  and 
with  a  low  franchise  practically  permitting  every 
negro  to  vote.  In  Grenada,  Dominica,  and  other 
islands  there  are  large  communities  of  negro  free- 
holders invested  with  political  power.  In  Barba- 
dos the  whites  still  control  the  ownership  of  the 
land,  but  everywhere  else  the  negro  is  becoming 
a  peasant  proprietor  and  a  pohtician.  The  gen- 
eral trend  of  events  and  tendencies  is  in  the 
direction  of  negro  rule.  The  whites,  disheart- 
ened by  the  economic  conditions,  are  selhng  their 
plantations  and  emigrating.  In  Jamaica  there 
are  700,000  blacks  and  15,000  whites,  and  in  other 
islands  the  preponderance  of  black  blood  is  evea 
greater.  Coolie  labor  has  proved  a  failure,  and 
the  industries  of  the  islands  are  dependent  apon 
the  indolent  blacks,  who  are  already  impressed 
with  the  conviction  that  the  Islands  are  theirs, 
and  that  they  are  destined  to  govern  them.  The 
English  Church  has  failed  to  leaven  this  mass 
of  ignorance,  because  it  is  the  white  man's  church. 
The  Moravians  have  done  the  best  missionary 
work,  but  even  they  have  been  powerless  to 
enforce  the  necessity  of  marriage  and  to  repress 
the  shocking  immorality  prevailing  in  the  islands,' 


BIG    KSUKS    OF  AN    OFF    YJiXR.  81 

The    population    of    the    Britisli    West    Indies  Several  years  ago,  wlien  the  British  West  Indies 

nnmhers    l,ijOf>,000    in    round    numbers,    and    its  could   not  enlist  sympathy  and   support  for  their 

forciig-n     tnwlc    agyrogatcs    575,000,000,    divided  shattered  industries  in  England,  tlie  United  States 

almost    eijually     between    exports    and    imports.  oflered   to   give   their  sugar   an   advantage   in   its 

Ti'inidad  has  the  largest  trade,  nearly  $20,000,000,  markets    over    competing    sugars.     The    islanders 

and    Jamaica    and     Barl)ado8    rank    among    the  were    overjoyed   and    pleaded    earnestly    witli   the 

islands,    with    §1  r,0oO,O00    and    $10,000,000    re-  Home  Government  for  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty, 

spcctively.     British    Guiana   has  a   foreign   trade  The  (.'olonial  Office  intervened  with  a  veto.     Eng- 

equal  to  that  of  Jamaica.     St.  liitts,  the  Bahamas,  land  refused  to  allow  the  United  States  to  go  to 

St.    Lucia,   Antigua,    St.    Vincent   and    Dominica  the   aid   o.f   the   colonies.     The   new   offer   of  the 

form   the    next   group   in    importance,    but   their  United  States  is  for  a  free  market  for  sugar,  but 

trade  Is  of  small  volume.     Out  of  a  total  export  that   is   an    advantage    to    be   shared    equally    by 

of  $.'! 0,000,000  of  produce  of  all  kinds,  $1,3,235,-  Brazil   and   Cuba.     It  is   not  so   generous  as  the 

500  represents  sugar  shii>ped  to  the  United  States,  lirst  preferential  proposal,  but  it  is  made  by  the 

where   it  forms  about    13   per  cent  of  the  entire  best  customer  which  the  islands  have.     If  it  be 

importation   of   cane    and    beet    sugar.     In    1889  rejected  they  may  lose  that  trade,  and  that  would 

the   British   West   Indies    furnished    to   the   same  be  Something   serious.     The   British    West   Indies 

market     14,083,710     pounds     of     coffee,     worth  may  not  be  willing  to  enter  into  reciprocity   ar- 

$1,089,217,  but  in  1890  a  smaller  i|uantity,  worth  rangements  with  the  United  States,  but  they  will 

$803,281.     In     1888    the    importation     of    hides  be   certain   to    avoid    giving   offence   and    thereby 

from  the  islands  was  5465,777.     In  round   nam-  subjecting  themselves  to  the  loss  of  the  free  mar- 

bers   about   $15,000,000   of  the   export  trade   of  ket  by  supporting  Canatla's  demand  for  preferea- 

the   Lslands   and   British   Guiana  will   be   covered  tial  trade.     Any  special  concessions  which  might 

by  the  i-eciprocity  amendment  to  the  Tariff  act.  be  made  to  Canada  would  involve  the  enforcement 

Of  this  aggregate  the  main  entry  is  sugar.     The  of  the  amendment  and   the   imposition   of   duties 

British   West   Indies   and    British    Guiana   supply  on  their  coffee,  sugar  and  hides  in  the  Americau 

about  one-third  as  much  cane  sugar  to  the  Amcri-  market.     It  may  be  possible  for  them  to  have  the 

can  market  as  Cuba  and  Puerto  Rico.  free    market   permanently   without    paying   for  it 

The  light-fingered  Canadian  gamblers  who  have  in  comi>ensating  concessions  to  the  United  States, 

been  seeking  to  draw-  the  British  West  Indies  into  They  may  consitler  it  safe  to  trust  to  the  iudul- 

a  quiet  little  reciprocity  game  of  their  own,  where-  gence   of  the  great  Kepublic ;   but   they  will  not 

in  they  would  have  all  the  aces,  kings  and  kn.aves  venture.to  challenge  it  to  lose  its  markets  against 

in  their  sleeves,   have   been   greatly   demoralized  them. 

this  week  by  the  announcement  of  the  success-  The  answer  to  Canada's  importunate  and  un- 
ful  negotiation  of  a  treaty  1)etweeu  the  United  reasonable  demands  for  a  one-sided  reciprocity 
States  and  Spain;  Thiis  Hreatj-  confers  Tipon  profitable  only  to  its  own  interests  has  come  al- 
Oubi  and  Puerto  Rico  the  advantage  of  a  per-  ready  from  British  Guiana.  Mr.  Foster  asked 
manent  free  market  for  their  sugar.  The  ques-  for  differential  treatment  of  Canadian  coal,  wheat, 
tion  which  British  West  Indian  planters  are  now  lish,  meat,  lumber  and  manufactures  in  return  for 
asking  is  whetiier  they  can  afford  to  be  deprived  preferential  reductions  of  duties  on  sugar  and 
of  the  free  market  for  their  sugar  by  the  opera-  fruit.  The  Governor  has  replied  that  British 
tlon  of  the  retaliatory  clause  of  the  reciprocity  Guiana  cannot  adopt  a  course  which  would  exclude 
amendment.  They  are  selling  $13,235,500  of  the  sugars' and  fruits  of  the  colony  from  admission 
their  sugar  in  the  United  States,  to  say  nothing  to  the  markets  of  the  United  States  upon  the  most 
of  coft'ee  and  hides.  Cuba  and  Puerto  Rico  are  favored  terms.  In  order  to  appreciate  the  good 
celling  in  the  same  market  $3  9,099,670,  and  are  sense  of  the  Governor  it  is  only  necessary  to  corn- 
preparing  to  increase  very  largely  their  pare  the  trade  of  the  United  States  and  Canada 
production.  If  a  discrimination  be  majje  with  the  leading  colo,nies. 
against  British  West  Indian  sugar  and  EXPORTS  from  west  iin'DIES. 
a  duty  be  imposed  upon  it,  it  "will  be  shut  out  of  Xo  Unittd  states.  To  Canada. 

the  American   marKet.     What  then  will  they  do  ?rin*dad "■.";:■  ■;"■;; *3'235'p7  *"3?78 

with   it?     Europe   has   its    own    supply    of   bee1>  Jam'S?^^.".".::::".".:::".:::::".  lEoiisio  isi'^75 

sugar,  which   is  increasing   at  an   enormous   rate  ".^ — '■ '■ ! 

every  year.     It  cannot  be  forced  to  take  the  sur-  IMPORTS  TO  WEsfixDiES.     *'■''''"' 

plus   ot   cane-sugar  produced   in  the  West  Indies.  From  United  states.       From  Canada. 

^Yl\at  then  have  the  Canadian  diplomats  to  say?  Guiana    $1560.133  $410,146 

„,  ,  ,  ^    ,,  .  ,        ^    \.,  J  *  Trinidad      1.693.337  292,fi22 

They    have    been    talking    about    the    advantages  Barbadoes    1,926,334  383,380 

of    a    preferential    arrangement    by   which    sugar  Ja™*'"* 2,722.6.50  ^-^-'''^ 

and  fruit  will  be  admitted  into  Canada  with  a  dis-  $7.902,4.56  $1,817,919 
crimination  of  25  per  cent,  and  the  products  of  These  figures  disclose  the  inherent  weakness  of 
their  fisheries,  farms,  mines  and  forests  favored  in  the  Canadian  case  for  recipjoeity.  The  United 
tlie  same  way  in  return.  Can  they  guarantee  a  States  buys  twelve  times  as  much  as  Canada,  and 
market  for  $13,000,000  of  sugar?  That  is  what  sells  only  four  times  as  much  to  the  islands, 
they  cannot  do.  Indeed,  from  the  first,  thej'  Trade,  so  far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned, 
have  not  been  interested  so  much  in  Canada's  pur-  is  unreciprocal,  but  Canada  'uas  no  reasca  for 
chasing  power  as  in  its  increased  facilities  for  complaint  so  long  as  it  already  sells  more  than 
selling  a  surplus  of  its  own  which  is  no  longer  it  buys.  When  Canada  asks  for  differential  ad- 
marketable  in  the  United  States.  vantages  in  West  Indian  markets  at  the  expense 


«2 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAK. 


of  the  United  States,  wliioh  Is  a  much  larger 
purcliaser  of  coffee,  sugar  and  fruit,  Its  assurance 
aTid  coolness  are  almost  grotesque.  The  solier 
judgment  of  the  West  Indian  planters  will  in- 
evitably reject  this  specious  appeal  to  obtain  a 
larger  export  trade  on  the  strength  of  inferior 
purchasing  power.  England  has  neglected  ffie 
colonies,  and  by  allowing  them  to  shift  for  them- 
6ol  T.-^i,  is  gradually  converting  thein  into  com- 
mercial dependencies  of  the  United  States.  The 
colonies  cannot  help  feeling  that  they  have  been 
cast  off  by  an  unnatural  mother ;  but  tliat  fact 
does  not  predispose  them  to  accept  Canada's 
services  as  a  wet-nuise.  Their  real  interests  lie 
in  the  direction  of  commercial  union  with  the 
United  States,  on  equal  terms  with  Cuba  and 
Puerto  Eico.  Loyalty  to  the  Crown  and  fi'a- 
ternal  feeling  among  British  depeindencies  are 
excellent  in  sentiment,  but  the  commercial  ex- 
changes of  the  world  are  regulated  by  economic 
laws  of  demand  and  supply,  and  arc  strictly 
business  relations.  The  British  flag  may  te  at 
Halifax  and  Montreal,  but  the  best  market  for 
West  Indian  produce  is  New-York.  If  reciprocity 
be  brought  to  bear,  the  commerce  of  the  islands 
will  inevitably  be  drawn  toward  the  market  as 
a  magnet  superior  to  the  flag.  The  rapid  deveiop- 
ment  of  trade  with  the  United  States  during  re- 
cent yeai-s,  as  illustrated  below,  demonstrates 
the  efficiency  of  the  attractive  force  of  a  great 
market ; 

TKADB   OF   BRITISH   WEST   INDIES   AND    GUIANA. 

Imports  into 
United  States. 
$11,718,270 
14,303,652 
15  373,202 
20,511,743 
19,191,993 

$44,030,806  $81,104,936 

The  latest  year  for  which  I  can  obtain  statistics 
of  the  entire  trade  of  the  British  West  Indies  and 
Guiana  is  1888,  when  the  exports  from  the 
islands  amounted  to  $39,803,276,  and  the  imports 
to  SJ35, 579,436.  Nearly  one-half  of  the  exports 
sent  abroad  went  to  the  United  States,  and  the 
proportion  has  increased  during  the  last  two  years. 
The  islands  have  a  large  trade  with  Great  Britain 
in  r.an,  sugar,  cocoi,  logwood,  dyewoods  and  spices, 
but  it  is  not  a  growing  trade.  Sugar  and  fruit 
are  the  staple  exports  from  the  islands,  and  the 
markets  for  those  products  are  in  the  United 
States.  Mr.  Foster,  wlien  he  was  in  the  West 
Indies,  offered  o.n  the  part  of  Canada  to  establish 
two  steam  lines— one  a  monthly  service  between 
at.  John  and  Demerara,  touching  at  the  princi- 
pal Leeward  and  Windward  Islands,  and  the  other 
a  monthly  service  between  Halifax  and  Kingston. 
These  lines  will  undoubtedly  euLirge  the  trade 
between  Canada  and  the  West  Indies,  but  the 
service  will  not  be  better  than  that  already  ex- 
iting between  the  islands  and  New-York,  al- 
though that  ought  to  be  impio\ed.  Even  with 
these  new  transportation  facilities,  for  which  sub- 
sidies will  be  paid  at  both  ends,  5,000,000 
Canadians  cannot  hope  to  compete  with  63,000,- 
OOO  Americans. 

Undoubtedly  the  British.  West  Indies  are  hoi)- 
ing  to  toake  practical  use  of  the  Canadian  over- 
tures for  the  control  of  their  trade.     Now  that 


Exports  from 
Tear.  United  States. 

1886    $8,068,425 

lo87    7,888,241 

18S8    9,101,729 

1889    8,197,093 

1890    10,180,778 


the  United  States  has  concluded  reciprocity  ar- 
ra'.gements  with  Brazil  and  the  Spajiish  West 
Indies,  and  may  be  expected  to  follow  up  the  same 
policy  with  Santo  Domingo,  Hayti,  Venezuela, 
Mexico  and  other  countries,  it  is  a  matter  of 
pressing  importance  to  the  British  West  Indies  to 
retain  the  free  market  for  their  sugar.  If  they 
have  a  standing  offer  from  Canada  to  enter  into 
a  preferential  arrangement  they  have  at  least 
a  resource  upon  which  they  can  depend  in  pre- 
venting the  closing  of  the  free  market.  They 
will  not  accept  Canada's  proposals,  but  they 
will  hold  the  ofl'er  under  consideration  and  sub- 
sidize its  new  steamship  lines.  This  they  will  be 
likelj'  to  do  in  the  hope  of  being  allowed  to  re- 
tain the  free  market  on  sufferance  without  pay- 
ing for  it  in  con(5essions  to  American  exports. 
They  will  trade  upon  their  neutrality  in  this 
commercial  rivalry  between  Canada  and  the  United 
States,  and  ask  to  have  their  unwillingness  to 
favor  the  one  at  the  expense  of  the  other  ac- 
cepted at  Washington  as  an  equivalent  for  the 
large  advantages  which  thej'  enjoy  in  the  Ameri- 
can market. 

What  course  the  Administration  will  take  in 
this  matter  next  January  it  would  be,  of  course, 
premature  to  forecast.  The  President  is  empow- 
ered to  close  the  tree  market  if,  in  his  judgment, 
the  conditions  of  trade  are  inequitable.  He  will 
have  no  alternative  if  preferential  treaties  are 
made  with  Canada ;  but  if  the  islands,  as  is  prob- 
able, reject  these  overtures  from  the  Dominion, 
his  course  will  largely  depend  upon  his  judg- 
ment as  to  what  are  to  be  considered  equitable 
conditions  of  Southern  trade.  The  following  ex- 
hibit will  illustrate  the  question : 

TEADE     OF     SOUTHERN     COUNTRIES  WITH     THE 
UNITED  STATES  IN  1890. 

Exports  from  Imports  iuto 

West  Indies.                             United  States.  UniteU  States. 

Spanish    $15,381,953  $57,855,217 

Blittsll  8,288,780  14,863,018 

G^ianas  2,510,797  4^918,730 

Santo  Dcminpo 826,051  1.951.013 

Hayti    5.101,404  2,421,221 

Danish  -.-. 

Dutch  

French  

$35,744,019  $82,922,977 

Brazil   11.972,214  59,318,756 

Venezuela 4.028  583  10.906.763 

Central  America 5,650,946  8.239,273 

Plate  countries 12,239,331  7.150,600 

West  Coast  States 7.965.703  7.645.2S7 

Mexico 13,285,287  22,690,915 


794,293  588,739 

609,093  194,036 

1.094,382  128.997 


Total $93,880,1 03         $198,910,575 

Judged  by  the  practical  standard  of  the  exports 
and  imports,  the  British  West  Indies  and  the 
Guianas  are  in  less  unfavorable  relations  of  in- 
equality and  inequity  than  Brazil,  the  Spanish 
West  Indies,  Venezuela  and  Santo  Domingo ;  but 
in  comparison  with  Mexico,  Hayti,  Central 
America,  the  Plate  countries  and  the  west  coast 
States  of  South  America  they  are  at  a  disadvan- 
tage.  Eeciprooity  under  the  Aldrich  amendment 
applies  mainly  to  Brazil,  the  Spanish  West  Indies, 
Venezuela,  Santo  Domingo,  the  British  West  In- 
dies, British  Guiana  and  Central  America.  With 
Mexico  and  the  remaining  countries  the  coSai- 
tions  require  special  treaties  outside  of  the  range 
of  the  amendment. 

Eeciprooity  is  a  great  policy  which  will  readjust 
the  present  inequitable  conditions  of  trade  and 
enlarge  the  foreign  markets  for  American  exports. 


HIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


83 


The  fact  that  the  Unitetl  States  receives  5^00,- 
000,000  of  produce  from  the  South  and  sells  less 
than  ?91,000,000  in  return  is  a  complete  demon- 
stration of  the  necessity  of  more  equitable  con, 
aitions  of  exchange.  Under  fair  relations  of  reci- 
procity the  United  States,  instead  of  having 
$300,000,000  of  the  51,200,000,000  of  foreign 
trade  of  the  countries  included  in  tlio  foregoing 
table,  can  reasonably  expect  to  have  iP0OO,O00,00O. 
But  this  tremendous  gain  will  require  something 
in  addition  to  the  enlightened  diplomacy  of  the 
Harrison  Administration.  There  must  be  a  res- 
toration of  the  American  commercial  marine  and 
a  development  of  mercantile  energy  on  land  and 
sea.  The  flag  must  be  carried  into  foreign  ports 
and  wholesale  houses  established  in  the  cliief  cen- 
tres of  population.  Reciprocity  will  be  a  great 
gain,  but  it  is  only  a  condition  for  the  develop- 
ment of  American  enterprise.  The  way  to  com- 
pete  is  to  compete.  I-  N.  F. 


OPENING  FOREIGN  MARKETS. 


HOW  TO  ENLARGE  THE  EXPOET  TKADE. 


FREE    R.\W    M.^TEEIiALS    AIiRE.\DY    AVAILABLE— 

THE    TARIFF    NOT    AT    FAULT— PRAOTI GAL 

SUGGESTIONS  FROM  A   SUCCESSFUL 

MERCHANT— WHOLESALE 

HOUSES  REQUIRED. 

Kingston,  April  20.— When  the  question  of  en- 
larging the  export  trade  of  the  United  States  was 
raised  by  the  Harrison  Administration  our  free- 
trade  doctrinaires  condemned  the  movement  with 
fine  irony.  How  could  Southern  countries,  they 
asked,  be  expected  to  buy  their  imports  in  a  mar- 
ket from  which  their  own  products  were  shut 
out  by  a  Chinese  tariff  wall?  Commerce  is  bar- 
ter, they  were  good  enough  to  explain,  and  a 
nation  which  hopes  to  sell  its  surplus  stock  must 
show  its  readiness  to  buy  freely  from  foreign 
customers.  Long  before  the  Pan-American  Con- 
ference  was  closed  the  country  knew  that  it  was 
buying  more  freely  than  any  European  nation  in 
Southern  markets.  So  large  was  the  margin  be- 
tween its  imports  from  that  quarter  and  its  ex- 
ports sent  in  exchange  that  there  was  broad 
ground  for  the  reciprocity  policy  which  is  now 
one  of  the  leading  issues  presented  to  the  Amer- 
ican people  by  the  Harrison  Administration. 

The  doctrinaires,  having  been  forced  to  aban- 
don their  first  line,  fell  back  upon  what  they 
have  considered  impregnable  ground.  They  ad- 
mitted reluctantly  that  the  United  States  has  es- 
tablished what  is  vitrually  a  large  measure  of 
free  trade  with  Southern  countries ;  but  they  con- 
tended that  without  free  raw  materials  it  would 
be  impracticable  for  American  manufacturers  to 
compete  with  European  rivals.  Spanish-America 
and  Brazil,  they  reasoned,  would  continue  to  sell 
their  coffee,  sugar,  rnbber,  hides,  dye-woods  and 
fruits  wherever  there  was  a  market  for  them ;  but 
when  they  had  anything  to  buy  they  would  avoid 
the  Nearest  and  go  to  the  cheapest  market.  UntU 
raw  materials  were  cheapened,  they  added,  Amer- 


icans could  not  hope  to  manufacture  on  even 
terms  with  England,  France  and  Germany.  The 
tariff  must  first  go ;  and  then  all  things  would 
be  fulfilled.  _ 

One  position  can  be  turned  as  easily  as  the 
other.  Of  the  imports  received  in  Southern  coun- 
tries, at  least  75  per  cent  are  manufactures  which 
have  free  raw  materials  in  the  United  States. 
Those  manufactures  which  are  heavily  protected 
there  are  not  those  which  come  to  these  countries 
in  large  quantity'  from  Europe.  Jamaica,  for  ex- 
ample, imports  $1,.').3R,438  of  cotton  goods  and 
only  $1.37,4.'>G  of  woollen  goods,  and  the  propor- 
tion is  even  larger  for  Brazil  and  other  countries. 
BlanketiS,  carpets,  upholstered  furniture,  felts, 
heavy  cloth  and  linens  are  imported  sparingly. 
The  bulk  of  the  manufactures  required  in  these 
marlcets  are  those  which  are  most  lightly  pro- 
tected in  the  United  States,  and  for  which  free 
raw  materials  are  available,  even  without  the  re- 
bate allowed  for  the  export  trade.  When,  there- 
fore, the  doctrinaires  lay  stress  upon  the  necessity 
of  having  free  raw  materials  before  active  com- 
petition can  be  successfully  conducted  in  South- 
ern markets,  they  make  a  concession  which  virt- 
ually opens  the  greater  part  of  the  field  to  Amer. 
ican  manufacturere  and  exporters.  Few  of  those 
goods  which  are  heaA-ily  protected  in  the  United 
States  are  wanted  here  at  any  price.  What  are 
wanted  are  cottons,  boots  and  shoes  and  manu- 
factures of  paper,  leather,  hides,  sldns,  glass, 
rubber,  iron  and  steel,  for  which  free  raw  mate- 
rials are  furnished  already,  or  which  have  been 
so  greatly  cheapened  in  price  by  competition  under 
the  protective  system  as  to  be  on  a  level  with 
European  goods.  Americans  are  not  compelled 
to  wait  for  an  era  of  free  trade  before  making  a 
vigorous  effort  to  supply  these  markets  with  what 
is  needed.  It  is  not  their  tariff  that  is  at  fault 
and  stands  in  their  way.  It  is  ignorance  of  the 
requirements  and  conditions  of  Southern  trade 
that  is  the  chief  obstacle  to  the  development  of 
their  export  trade.  Maritime  energy,  by  which  a 
commercial  marine  can  be  brought  into  existence 
under  the  national  Hag  is  also  lacking :  mercantile 
energy  has  been  confined  to  the  home  market  and 
the  foreign  field  surrendered  to  foreigners ;  and 
Southern  countries  have  been  allowed  to  receive 
as  gratuities  commercial  privileges  of  tremendous 
magnitude  which  ought  to  have  been  made  the 
basis  of  equitable  reciprocity. 

An  ounce  of  practical  experience  is  worth  a 
pound  of  theoretical  statement.  During  my  stay  in 
.Jamaica,  I  have  oonvereed  frequently  with  Cap- 
tain D.  F.  Jlurphy,  an  enterprising  American 
merchant,  who,  in  a  short  period,  has  established 
a  large  and  profitable  tiude  not  only  with  the 
island,  but  with  Hayt.i  and  Central  Americ-a. 
A  New-England  manufacturer  of  boots  and  shoes, 
he  has  succeeded  in  displacing,  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, English  goods  of  tliis  class  in  Jamaica ;  and 
has  demonstrated  the  practicability  of  opening 
a  large  market  in  the  South  for  a  wide  range  of 
American  manufactures.  Before  making  Kingston 
his  headquarters  for  wholesale  trade,  he  trav- 
elled through  Nicaragua  and  other  portions  of 
Central  America,  and  convinced  not  only  himself, 
but  also  a  syndicate  of  New-England  manufact- 


94 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


urersj  that  Americans  were  neglecting  a  field 
for  enterprise  that  was  wliite  already  for  harvest. 
I  have  taken  pains  to  run  over  with  Captain 
Murphy  a  schedule  of  exports  from  the  United 
States  and  to  note  down  his  comments  upon  the 
chances  and-  opportunities  for  largely  increasing 
their  volume.  His  judgment,  being  based  upon 
experience  and  marlfed  success  ]«  establishing 
a  profitable  business,  is  entitled  to  great  weight. 

Beginning  with  his  own  specialty.  Captain 
Murphy  says  that  while  shoes  of  English  and 
German  manufacture  below  75  cents  are  cheaper 
than  American  goods ;  the  condition  is  reversed 
for  all  above  that  price.  At  75  cents  and  up  to 
$1  25,  a  pair  (if  American  shoes  will  average 
10  per  cent  less  than  foreign  goods;  from  §1  25 
to  $1  75  the  average  cost  will  be  15  per  cent 
less  ;  and  from  $1.75  to  $3,  English,  German, 
French  and  Austrian  shoes  will  cost  20  per 
cent  more  than  New-England  shoes.  When  Cap- 
tain Murphy  arrived  in  Jamaica  there  was  a  strong 
prejudice  against  American  shoes.  Now  every 
retail  dealer  is  compelled  to  sell  them  because 
the  goods  are  cheaper,  and  at  the  same  time 
superior  to  those  of  foreign  make.  Of  harness, 
trunks,  valises  and  other  manufactures  of  leather 
there  is  a  large  consumption  in  Southern  markets 
and  there  is  nothing  in  the  way  of  the  intro- 
duction of  Atoerican  goods,  since  European  goods 
can  be  undersold.  American  leather  is  now  ex- 
ported to  Germany  in  large  quantities  and 
shipped  to  Central  America  to  be  sold  at  high 
prices.  American  merchants  have  only  to  make 
the  effort  in  order  to  sell  their  leather  themselves 
in  that  market. 

The  sale  of  American  furniture.  Captain  Mur- 
phy asserts,  can  be  trebled  in  Southern  countries 
if  large  stacks  can  be  displayed  in  wholesale 
houses.  Rubber  goods,  for  which  free  raw  ma- 
(terial  is  supplied  from  Brazil,  Colombia  and 
Central  America,  can  be  sold  at  prices  fifteen 
per  cent  lower  than  English  importations.  There 
is  a  very  large  demand  lor  rubber  blankets, 
overcoats,  waterproofs,  hosepipe  and  many  other 
manufactures  in  which  the  United  States  excels. 

American  tinware  is  preferred,  although  the 
prices  may  be  higher  than  English  prices. 
American  stationery  and  paper  are  ten  per  cent 
cheaper  than  English  and  more  desirable  in 
styles.  American  clocks  and  watches  are  with- 
out competition  when  once  introduced.  Small 
iron  castings  from  the  United  States  are  largely 
in  demand  and  are  the  cheapest  in  the  market. 
American  nails,  from  Wheeling,  are  often  im- 
fporte«  from  England  for  Southern  tnarkets. 
Fencing-wire  from  the  United  States  is  5  per 
cent  cheaper  than  European  wire.  There  is  a 
tnarked  preference  for  American  horseshoes, 
locks,  hinges,  builders'  hardware,  kitchen  uten- 
sils and  housekeeping  goods,  which  are  often 
cheaper  than  competing  articles.  Iron-pipe  for 
gas  and  water  is  found  to  be  greatly  superior  to 
European  stock  when  imported  from  the  United 
States,  and  is  sold  at  the  same  price. 

Notwithstanding  the  marked  superiority  of 
American  agricultural  implements,  their  introduc- 
tion has  been  attended  with  great  diflSciilty  in 
Southern  countries.     In  Mexico  this  class  of  farm 


machinery  is  coming  into  use,  but  in  Central, 
and  South  America  primitive  metliods  of  agri- 
culture are  still  in  vogue.  Captain  Murphy  main- 
tains that  the  American  goods  wUl  inevitably 
displace  European  competition,  since  they  are- 
already  cheaper.  The  sale  of  American  carriages, 
street^cars  and  railway  rolling-stock  can  be 
greatly  enlarged  if  facilities  are  afforded  for  seeing, 
them  in  wholesale  warehouses.  American  pianos- 
have  no  sale  because  the  European  manufacturers 
put  them  into  the  market  at  a  reduction  of  25 
or  30  per  cent  in  cost.  English  sewing  machines' 
of  inferior  quality  are  also  sold  in  preference  to. 
American  on  the  score  of  cheapness,  but  are 
generally  found  to  be  unsatisfactory.  American 
patterns  are  slowly  coming  into  the  market. 
Belgian  boilers  are  in  common  use,  but  (are  short- 
lived, the  tubes  being  badly  set.  If  American 
boilers  were  once  fairly  in  the  market,  a  slight 
difference  in  price  ('would  not  operate  against  them. 
There  are  large  classes  of  wood  manufactures- 
in  which  the  United  States  does  not  need  to  fear 
competition.  Shocks,  hogsheads  and  barrel^ ;; 
mouldings,  picture  frames,  sashes,  blinds,  doors 
and  other  house  furnishings  and  many  other 
articles  can  be  sold  at  lower  prices  in  the  South 
than  European  goods.  Brooms  and  brushes  are 
already  largely  imported  from  New- York.  Ameri- 
can lamps  and  stoves-  are  also  in  demand.  Nor- 
wegian and  German  matches  are  without  com- 
petition. American  paints  are  often  called  for 
and  not  supplied  with  energy  and  enterprise. 

American  cottons  are  imported  in  increasing 
quantity  in  the  lace  of  strenuous  competition  from 
England.  This  is  a  great  field  for  enter j)rise,  lor 
which  the  system  of  manufacturing  in  New-Eng- 
land is  well  adapted.  The  cotton  manuT'acturera 
there  are,  to  a  large  extent,  specialists,  like  the- 
shoe  manufacturers,  and  they  have  a  marked  ad- 
vantage over  European  rivals,,  who  employ  less- 
labor-saving  machinery  and  iproduce  a  larger 
variety  of  stock.  Wholesale  houses  in  which  the- 
great  specialties  of  American  manufacture  can 
be  colleot-ed  and  exhibited  in  stock  are  indispens- 
able for  the  idevelopment  of  the  export  trade  in 
cottons  and  shoes.  A  single  specialist  cannot  hope 
to  sell  his  goods  in  this  market,  although  he  may 
undersell  aU  competitors.  Wholesale  merchants- 
dealing  in  all  the  leading  specialties  and  prepared 
to  furnish,  goods  from  stock  actually  in  hand 
can  alone  be  depended  upon  to  open  a  market 
for  many  classes  of  manufacture  unrivalled  in 
cheapness  and  excellence.  For  woollen  goods- 
there  is  little  demand  in  hot  countries.  Only  in 
the  lighter  grades  will  it  be  practical  for  Ameri- 
cans to  introduce  goods  of  tliis  class. 

It  is  most  invigorating  to  meet  an  iVjnerican 
merchant  in  these  countries  who  can  speak  con- 
fidently, and  yet  from  personal  experi- 
ence, of  an  immediate  prospect  of  an 
expansion  of  the  export  trade  and  active  com- 
petition with  industrial  Europe.  Captain  Mur- 
phy's wholesale  business  has  been  so  successful 
that  he  and  his  financial  supporters  in  Boston 
are  contemplating  the  establishment  of  similar 
houses  on  the  Iwest  coast  and  elsewhere.  He  ri(3i- 
cules  the  idea  that  -the  American  tariff  prevents 
competition  with.  Europe,  and  contends  that  tha 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAR. 


85 


long-credit  system,  oC  which  so  much  has 
been  said  and  written,  is  of  far  less  importance 
than  has  been  repre"sentcd.  Tlie  creditB  given  by 
American  houses  are  long  (enough  lor  securing  re- 
munerative trade.  He  has  found  the  conditions 
of  business  integrity  good  wherever  he  lias  tiaded 
in  the  West  Indies  and  Central  America,  and  does 
not  think  tliat  exporters  need  to  be  afraid  of 
running  up  bad  debts  in  the  South.  He  attaches 
less  importance  to  the  necessity  of  building  up 
an  American  commercial  marine  than  otiier  mer- 
chants whom  I  have  met  in  Spanish-America.  This, 
I  thirdc,  is  because  he  is  more  familiar  with  the 
West  Indies  than  with  South  America.  Here 
there  is  no  lack  of  steam  communication  with 
the  United  States.  There  are  always  fifti'en,  and 
sometimes  as  many  as  twenty-live,  steamers  a 
month  between  the  island  and  American  ports, 
and  not  more  than  six  to  and  from  Europe. 
Freights,  consequently,  are  favorable  here  for 
United  States  exporters.  In  South  America  the 
transportation  conditions  are  very  different. 

In  order  to  be  quite  just  to  Captiiin  Murphy,  I 
must  also  add  that  he  is  not  an  enthusiast  on  the 
subject  of  reciprocity.  He  does  not  consider  it 
necessary  to  have  special  commercial  arrange- 
ments in  order  to  develop  the  export  trade  of 
the  United  States.  I  think  he  is  wrong  in  that 
matter,  but  let  that  pass.  The  main  obstacle, 
he  contends,  is  ignorance  on  the  part  of  manu- 
facturers aiTd  merchants.  They  do  not  know  how 
to  make  goods  for  southern  markets ;  nor  how  to 
ship,  pack  and  sell  them.  When  duties  are  lexied 
upon  gross  weight,  to  pack  goods  in  heavy  boxes 
is  to  add  20  per  cent  to  the  cost.  Southern  mer- 
chants never  know  what  American  goods  will 
cost  until  they  have  them  on  their  counters,  for 
they  cannot  forecast  the  blunders  in  invoicing 
and  pacl<ing  which  inevitably  are  made.  Here 
comes  in  the  great  advantage  of  American  whole- 
sale houses  established  at  the  centres  of  Spanish- 
American  population.  Merchants  on  the  ground 
wiU  be  familiar  with  all  the  details  of  customs 
law,  interior  transportation,  invoicing,  and  the 
requirements  of  public  taste  and  convenience. 
They  can  carry  large  stocks  from  which  retail 
dealers  can  replenish  their  shelves  whenever  they 
choose  to  order  goods7  and  there  will  be  no  de- 
lay in  filling  orders  and  no  blunders  in  packing. 
They  wUl  not  antagonize  the  local  retail  mer- 
cliants,  but  wiU  enable  them  to  buy  American 
goods  from  stock  on  the  ground  as  they  want 
them. 

To  American  merchants  and  manufacturers 
who  are  aspiring  to  take  advantage  of  the  reci- 
procity treaties  and  to  sell  them  goods  in  south- 
ern markets,  I  recommend  a  careful  consideration 
ol  the  plaJi  of  establishing  wholesale  houses  in 
Havana,  Matanzas,  Cienfuegos,  Santiago,  Kings- 
ton, Barbados,  Para,  Pernambuco,  Bahia,  Eio, 
Montevideo,  Buenos  Ayres,  and  all  the  important 
ports  of  the  west  and  north  coasts  of  South 
America.  A  Shoe  or  a  cotton-print  manufacturer 
cannot  open  a  market  by  writing  letters  to  Ameri- 
can Consuls,  by  sending  samples  by  mail,  by  so- 
liciting orders  through  commercial  traveUers,  or 
by  spasmodic  dealing  with  commission  houses.  A 
few  groups  ol  a  dozen  such  manufacturers,  co- 


operating in  the  establishment  of  a  series  of  wliole- 
sale  houses  by  which  all  classes  of  American  goods 
can  be  handled,  will  solve  the  problem  of  the  ex- 
tension of  the  export  trade.  I.  N.  F. 


WHAT  PROTECTIONISTS  IN  CANADA  SAY. 
There  is  an  association  in  Canada    called  the 
Canadian   Manufacturers'   Association.        Here   is 
what  they   say    of   the   object  of   their   organiz- 
tion : 

To  secure  by  aH  legitimate  means  the  powerful  aid 
both  ol  public  opinion  and  governmental  policy  in 
favor  ol  tlie  development  ol  home  industry  and  the 
promotion  o£  the  interests  ol  Canadian  mannlacturers 
generajly.  To  enable  manufacturers  in  all  branches 
to  act  together  as  a  united  and  organized  body  when- 
ever action  on  behalf  ol  any  partlciilar  interest  or  of 
the  wliole  body  is  necessary.  To  promote  direct  trade 
with  such  countries  as  may  offer  profitable  markets 
lor  Canadian  manufactures  and  productions. 

The  Inception  ol  this  association  dates  back  to  1874; 
when  a  number  ol  mannlacturers,  many  of  them  re- 
formers in  politics,  met  together  and  discussed  the 
then  industrial  situation.  With  a  tarill  lor  revenue 
only,  such  as  at  that  time  was  In  lorce.  It  was  Im- 
possible to  build  up  a  diversity  ol  manufacturing  In- 
dustries In  Canada;  and  it  was  resolved  that,  unless  a 
policy  ol  protection  to  home  Industry  was  adopted  as 
a  National  policy,  the  country  would  continue  In  the 
future  with  even  more  certainty  than  in  the  past  a 
purely  agricultural  community,  raising  grain  and  farm 
products  lor  snch  other  nations  as  could  buy  from  n» 
more  cheaply  than  elsewhere. 

So  it  seems  that  there  were  some  business  men 
in  Canada,  who  had  sense  enough  to  discover 
"that  with  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  it  was  an 
impossibility  to  build  up  a  diversity  of  manu- 
facturing  industries"  in  the  country.  Australia 
years  ago  made  the  same  discovery.  Why  do 
not  the  free  traders  of  England  train  their  gun8 
upon  the  colonies  of  Great  Britain  for  a  while? 
New-Zealand  is  almost  the  only  one  among  them 
all  which  has  not  a  protective  tariff.  Indeed,  if 
there  is  another  first  or  second  class  Power  on 
the  globe,  outside  of  England,  with  perhaps  the 
exception  of  Switzerland,  which  has  not  a  pro- 
tective tariff,  will  some  one  name  it?  How  long 
is  it  since  the  people  ol  England  secu-^d  a  monop- 
oly of  the  intellect  and  business  sense  of  the 
world  ?  Again,  it'  free  trade  is  such  a  self-evident 
blessing,  why  cannot  these  English  teachers  ol 
the  doctrine  make  it  appear  plain  to  the  English 
speaking  colonies  of  their  own  country  ?  They 
have  utterly  failed  to  do  tliis.  The  civilized 
nations  ol  the  world  pronounce  the  theory,  in 
fact,  a  humbug,  and,  as  a  rule,  each  ol  them 
that  has  ever  tried  its  practical  workings  of  Iree 
trade,  has  been  compelled  to  abandon  it  and 
return  to  the  protective  system.  England  alone 
survives  the  general  catastrophe,  and  clings  to 
her  idol;  but  so  far  she  has  been  unable  to  de- 
lude even  her  own  colonies.— (E.  G.  H. 

NEW  ENTEEPESES,  AND  WHAT  THEY  MEAN. 

We  clip  from  the  "Bulletin  of  the  American 
Iron  and  Steel  Association"  of  December  31,  1890^ 
the  following  item: 

Contracts  have  Just  been  signed  between  the  Oxnard' 
Beet  Sugar  Company  and  Kichard  Gird,  mllEonalre,  ot 


86 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    YEAE. 


CJilno  Eanch,  San  BernScdiria.  County,  Cal.,  for  tmild- 
Ing  a.  big  sugar  factory  and  refinery,  which  will  'worli 
500  tons  of  beets  and  turn  out  over  fifty  tons  of  sugar 
daily.  Henry  T.  Oxnard,  whose  company  will  ex- 
pend $1,000,000  for  buildings  and  macliinery,  said 
recently  that  the  success  of  Ills  beet-sugai'  factory  at 
Grand  Island,  Nebraska,  induced  Wm  to  enter  into  this 
work.  He  added :  "  We  will  begin  on  Monday  to  erect 
at  Chlno  one  of  the  largest  and  most  perfectly  equipped 
beet-sugar  factories  in  the  United  States.  The  success 
of  our  company  is  a  brilliajit  example  of  the  wisdom 
of  the  Republican  party  when,  true  to  its  doctrine  of 
protection  to  home  industries,  it  gave  a  bounty  to 
manufacturers  of  home-grown  sugar.  The  machinery 
has  been  ordered  from  Cologne,  Germany,  wlilch  could 
not  be  secured  in  this  country,  but  the  greater  pari 
of  the  plant  is  of  American  imalte.  The  factory  wiU 
be  ready  for  operation  next  November."  Richard  Gird 
Is  under  contract  to  plant  2,500  acres  in  sugar  beets 
this  season  and  5,000  acres  every  year  thereafter.  He 
will  employ  from  300  to  500  men  on  his  ranch,  while 
the  factory  will  employ  2,500.  This  is  the  largest 
beet-sugar  enterprise  in  California,  and  is  duQ  directly 
to  the  McKlnley  bill. 

We  wish  that  every  farmer,  mechanic  and  work- 
ingmaoi  in  the  United  States  would  read  that  item 
and  then  reflect  upon  its  significance.  To  us  it  is 
full  of  meaning. 

For  many  years  there  has  heen  a  duty  levied  on 
sugar,  ranging  from  2  to  ^  1-2  cents  per  pound. 
The  growers  of  sugar  in  this  country  have  l^ept 
promising  that  they  would  increase  the  acreage 
and  in  a  short  time  produce  sugar  enough  to  give 
us  home  competition,  and  in  that  way  to  aid  in 
regulating  the  price  of  that  article.  After  long 
years  of  trial  they  have  utterly  failed  to  do  thLs. 
So  great  has  heen  that  failure  that  last  year 
they  did  not  produce  one  pound  in  ten  of  the 
sugar  actually  consumed  in  the  United  States' 
That  condition  of  things  caused  the  tariff  on  sugar 
to  become  simply  a  revenue  tariff  and  deprived 
it  of  all  the  elements  of  a  protective  duty. 

As  a  rule,  a  free-trade  tariff,  or  a  "  tariff  for 
revenue  only"  (and  they  are  one  and  the  same 
thing)  is  simply  a  ta.v  on  consumers.  Hence  this 
duty  on  sugar  had  to  be  paid  mostly  by  the  poorer 
people  of  the  country,  because  sugar  is  an  article 
universally  used,  and  tlie  rich  people  comprise 
a  vers'  small  portion  of  the  population  when  you 
come  to  consider  the  number  which  consume  this 
article ;  and  our  own  raisers  of  sugar  failed  to 
produce  enough  to  enable  them  to  affect  the  price. 

Now,  in  view  of  these  facts,  the  McKinley  bill 
put  all  the  cheaper  grades  of  sugar  on  the  free 
list.  But,  in  order  to  stimulate  the  production 
of  sugar  here  in  the  United  States,  the  bill  offered 
a  bounty  of  2  cents  a  pound  for  sugar  produced  in 
this  country  to  be  paid  to  any  person  producing 
EOO  or  more  pounds  in  any  one  year  from  sorghum, 
beets,  sugar-cane  or  maple  trees  This  payment 
of  a  bounty  to  stimulate  and  encourage  home 
production  is  510  mew  experiment  in  this  country. 
The  State  of  Michigan  did  t?iat  for  the  salt  in- 
dustry, when  it  was  new  and  undeveloped  in  that 
State.  Almost  every  free-trader  in  Congress  voted 
against  putting  sugar  on  the  free  list,  and  also 
again^  the  bou.nty  for  encouraging  its  growth  and 
production  here  at  home.  That  clause  of  the  Mc- 
Kinley bill  alone  will  save  to  our  sugar  consuming 
people  $60,000,000  each  year  over  and  above  the 


So, 000, 000  that  will  at  first  be  paid  in  bounties;^ 
and  that  saving  will  be  felt  at  almost  every  meall 
eaten  in  tiie  United  States. 

That  the  bounty  v/ill  continue  to  increase  in 
amount  is  what  we  all  should  desire,  because  that 
will  show  that  the  lecislation  was  in  the  right 
direction.  The  contract  named  in  the  item  above 
ciuoted  is  proof  of  the  wisdom  of  this  very  pro- 
vision of  the  bill.  Here  is  one  new  enterprise 
that  will  employ  3,000  men  at  the  very  stajt 
m  a  new  kind  oflabor  ,  and  this  is  only  one  of 
half  a  hundred  just  liliie  it  which  we  hope  to  see 
within  the  ne\t  ten  j'ears. 

Examine,  also,  the  statement  of  Norton  Brothers-, 
of  Chicago,  in  The  Tribune  of  last  week.  These 
large  manufacturers  of  tin  Oiins  tell  us  that  they 
are  already  making  their  own  tin-plate  from  im- 
ported iron  sheets,  but  that  before  long  they  in- 
tend to  make  even  their  tin-plate  sheets  at  their 
factory  in  Chicago.  One  portion  of  their  state- 
ent  is  quite  remarkable,  and  that  is  that  they 
did  not  go  abroad  for  a  single  workman.  This-  is- 
what  the  J'  say:  "AVe  found  a.  good  many  work- 
men scattered  about  the  country  who  had  worked' 
tor  years  in  Welsh  tin-plate  works,  and  gathered 
force  enough  in  this  way  to  man  our  plant  with 
experienced  help.  Since  it  became  known  thafr 
we  are  at  work  we  have  applications  from  more- 
men  than  we  can  employ  at  present,  and  we  an^ 
ticipate  no  difficulty  in  getting  all  the  sl^illed' 
help  we  shall  requii'e" 

Only  thinlc  up  to  what  these  two  items  lead ! 
First,  the  making  of  all  the  tin-plate  we- 
need  right  here  in  our  own  factories,  and 
thus  keeping  in  this  country  for  our  owHi 
people  $20,i'00,000  heretofore  seut  abroad 
eaoii  year  for  the  purchase  of  this  one  ar- 
ticle. Secondly,  the  raising  in  a  few  years- 
at  least  one-half  of  all  the  sugar  we  consume, 
and,  at  a  day  not  very  far  distant,  all  we  need 
from  our  own  soil,  and  having  it  manufactured: 
ready  for  the  table  in  our  own  mills,  thus  keeping 
for  the  use  of  our  own  people  §200,000,000  that 
must  otherwise  be  sent  abroad  for  sugar  alone! 
Think  also  of  the  assured  fact  that,  while  these- 
two  industries  alone  will  employ  at  good  wages 
an  Immense  army  of  workers,  sugar  will  be 
cheapened  to  every  one  who  must  buy  and  eat  it. 
In  a  little  while,  tin-plate  also  will  ]ye  furnished- 
here  at  home,  of  a  better  qualitj-  than  we  now 
get,  and  at  a  cheaper  price  than  the  foreign 
manufacturer  now  compels  us  to  pay.  AVatch  the 
results.  This  is  no  theorizing.  It  is  simply  predict- 
ing somethinn-  that  seems  to  us  sure  to  follow. 
If  these  things  do  follow  we  will  all  know  it,  and 
for  one  I  expect  to  live  long  enough  to  call  the- 
attention  of  the  free  traders  of  this  Nation  to 
both  these  results. 

One  of  my  self-imposed  duties  will  be  to  watch- 
for  these  new  enterprises,  and  report  their  exist- 
ence to  the  readers  of  The  Tribune.  My  faith 
is  very  strong  as  to  the  workings  of  this  new 
tariff  "law.  My  veneration  is  very  great  for  all 
people  who  do  honest  work,  who  live  by  honest 
toil,  for  every  man  who  drains  a  swamp  or 
fertilizes  a  barren  spot,  and  for  any  ma.n  of  meana 
who  will  build  up  any  enterprise  that  will  give 
employment  at  living  wages  to  our  own  people. 
Such  men,  all  of  them,  bless  humanity.  Let  us- 
make  more  tin-plate,  raise  more  sugar  beets,  do 
more  of  everything  that  builds  up  our  country 
and  makes  it  a  desirable  place  in  which  to  Uve. 
That  is  what  protection,  means.     E.  G.  HOKE. 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    VEAR. 


87 


LABOR  AND    IMMIGRATION: 


■IS   THE    AMERICAN    W(JRKIXGMAX   REALLY 
PROTECTED  ? 


•WHY    IMMIGRiATIOX     REN'OERS     A     PROTECTIVE 
TARIFF    ABSOLUXELT    XBCBSSARY. 

In  the  issue  of  Tlie  Semi-Weekly  Trib- 
une of  January  2  we  pulilishecl  pof- 
tious  of  a  lelter  written  by  W.  B.  Stick- 
iiey,  of  xVnii  Arbor,  Mich.,  and  gave  our  answer  to 
two  of  liis  inquiries.  The  same  letter  also  con- 
tained a  qni-stion  wliioli  seemed  worthy  of  a  sep- 
arate reply,  namely  :  "  How  dues  Protection  bene- 
fit tlie  u  ugc-carner  in  tliis  country  if  our  coun- 
try is  constantly  supplied  with  Hungarians,  Foles, 
Italians  and  lhe  cheaper  Icind  of  lalior  from  Europe 
to  meet  the  doiiiaud  for  tlie  same  ?" 

That  is  a  (jucstion  which  has  been  con.stantli' 
aslced  by  all  the  lice-trade  speakers  of  the  United 
States  fur  tlie  last  live  years.  Let  us  examine  it 
-with  some  care  and  see  if  any  solution  can  be 
reached. 

In  tihe  first  place,  it  might  well  be  claimed  that 
.this  question  has  very  little  dii-ect  bearing  upon 
tlie  general  question  as  to  whether  we  should 
-have  a  high  or  a  low  tan  If,  or  none  at  all,  on  prod- 
ucts imported  from  foreign  lands.  Our  tariff 
laws  deal  with  tlie  iieople  wlio  are  here.  Tlie  mo- 
ment these  Hungarians,  Poles  and  Italians  land 
on  our  shores,  they  instantly  Ijccunie  a  part  of 
our  people  and  must  be  provided  fur  the  same  as 
tbe  rest  of  our  population.  If  not,  where  would 
you  draw  the  line?  How  long  would  you  have  a 
man  here  before  he  should  l)e  entitled  to  the  full 
benefits  of  our  institutions  ?  One  day  ?  One 
week  ?  One  month  ?  One  year  ?  Ten  years  ? 
Or  should  it  be  t-wenty  years  ? 

However,  this  must  be  admitted.  Our  taritT 
laws  make  plenty  of  work  at  good  wages  in  the 
United  States,  and  tVie  high  wages  induce  the 
workmen  of  the  Old  World  to  seek  our  shores ; 
and  tliis  tide  of  immigration  causes  an  increased 
supply  of  wor1-ingmen.  So  tliat  the  real  question 
of  Jlr.  Stickuey  is  this :  "  How  does  a  protective 
tariff  benefit  our  laborers,  if  a  supply  of  working- 
men  comes  from  across  the  water  to  meet  every 
new  demand  ?"  That  is  a  pertinent  inquiry,  but 
the  answer  is  easily  given. 

Protection  neuelits  labor  in  the  United  States 
by  supplying  an  abundance  of  work  for,  not  only 
all  wuo  are  here,  but  all  who  come,  by  main- 
taining wages  at  a  high  level,  in  spite  of  the  con- 
tinual immigration  of  foreign  workmen,  and  by 
promoting  the  general  prosperity  of  the  whole 
country. 

Mr.  Stiel^ney  assumes  that  tihe  demand  for  more 
■workmen  in  America  is  constantly  supplied  by  an 
influx  of  '■  Hungari.xns,  Poles,  Italians  and  the 
cheaper  kind  of  labor  from  Europe."  This  is  not 
Strictly  correct.  A  certain  percentage  of  the  500,- 
OOO  immigra.nts  who  come  here  every  j'ear  have,  in- 
deed, been  accustomed  in  Europe  to  work  for 
starvation  wages ;  but  the  majority  are  Bnghsh- 
men,  Germans,  Scotch  and  Irish.  It  is  undoubt- 
edly true  that  all  of  them  have  worked  for  lower 


wages  than  workmen  in  tiie  Uuitt-d  States  receive, 
otherwise  they  would  not  come  here ;  but  it  is 
not  true  tht-.t  the  ranks  of  Labor  iu  the  United 
States  are  being  constantly  recruited  from  the 
cheaiM!st-paid  labor  of  Europe,  which  said  foreign 
labur  goes  to  work  in  the  United  Stiites  at  cor- 
rcspoiiilii.gly  luw  wages,  and  thus  undermines  the 
wages  of  .American  workmen.  These  immigrants 
aoj  a  rule,  do  not  work  for  the  low  wages  tihey 
left  behind  them  in  the  Old  World.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  instantly  demand  the  highest  wages, 
and  they  are  usually  noted  for  their  vigorous  de- 
sire to  get  the  highest  pay  possible  for  their  work. 
Until  it  can  lie  proved  that  the  constant  influx 
of  foreign  labor  actually  underminea 
wages  in  the  United  States,  protea- 
tion  will  be  absolutely  necessary  for 
our  workers,  because,  whether  or  not  they  need 
prutection  against  the  vast  tlirongs  of  workers 
who  come  to  America  annually  from  Europe,  they 
certainly  do  need  protection  against  the  low-paid 
workers  whu  remain  liehind  in  Europe,  and  who. 
if  they  could  flood  America  with  the  low-priced 
products  of  their  cheap  labor,  would  throw  our 
own  people  out  of  work  by  the  thousands. 

After  all,  the  point  involved  in  Mr.  Stickney's 
question  has  little  to  do  directlj-  with  the  subject 
of  a  high  or  low  tariff.  Whether  it  would  be 
wise  to  put  a  stop  to  the  coming  of  these  half  a 
million  of  foreigners  each  year  or  not  is  one  ques- 
tion. The  Icind  of  laws  that  we  should  have  to 
provide  for  the  well-being  of  all  our  people,  in- 
cluding these  very  immigrants,  so  long  as  our 
laws  permit  them  to  come,  is  another  question. 
It  may  be  that  the  time  has  come  when  this  im- 
mense tide  should  be  checked.  If  so,  let  us  ex- 
amine that  question  carefully,  honestly,  courage- 
ously, and  decide  it  upon  its  own  merits.  So 
long  as  we  permit  then,  to  come  land  in  the  past  we 
have  invited,  even  lu'ged  them  to  do  so;,  it  is  our 
duty  to  look  after  their  welfare  the  sime  as  we 
do  that  of  the  balance  of  our  people. 

Is  It  possible  tliat  our  free-trade  friends  would 
claim  that'  we  should  adopt  a  tariff  for  revenue 
only  in  order  to  reduce  the  wages 
of  our  working  people  to  so  low  a 
point  that  it  would  remove  all  in- 
ducemeut  for  immigration  ?  I  will  say  this,  that 
up  to  date  I  have  never  met  a  Free  Trader  who 
had  the  courage  to  take  that  position.  Permit 
me  to  ask  this  question :  •'  Is  there  a  single  argu- 
ment that  could  be  urged  against  the  coining  here 
of  these  Hungarians,  Poles  and  Italians  that  would 
not  be  just  as  potent  and  appropriate  if  we  had  a 
free-trade  tariff,  as  it  is  under  our  present  pro- 
tective system  ? "  If  there  is  one,  what  is  it?  If 
there  is  none,  then  pray  why  ask  the  question  at 
all  in  a  debate  on  the  tariff  ? 

I  can  see  a  much  stronger  reason  for  the  pro- 
tective system  so  long  as  we  permit  this  immigra- 
tion to  continue  than  would  exist  if  we  had  only 
to  deal  with  that  increase  of  populatiou  which 
comes  from  the  normal  birth-rate  of  our  own  peo- 
ple%  So  long  as  this  influx  of  foreign-born  people 
is  permitted,  there  will  be  aU  the  more  need  of 
that  system,  so  that  we  may  keep  up  the  standard 
of  wages  here  in  the  United  States. 

Let  me  illustrate.     We  all  admit  thit  our  syg- 


BIG    ISSUES    OF    AN    OFF    TEAR. 


tern  of  common  soliools  is  a  good  thing  for  our 
people.  We  all  agree  that  it  should  be  main- 
tained for  the  purpose  of  keeping  up  the  standard 
of  education  here  in  the  United  States.  What 
would  you  think  of  the  suggestion  that  there  is 
no  use  of  trying  to  do  this  so  long  as  we  permit 
many  ignorant  immigrants  to  land  on  our  shores, 
and  so  bring  down  the  standard  of  education 
here?  The  reply  would  most  certainly  come, 
without  the  least  hesitation,  that  in  that  event 
there  would  be  more  need  than  ever  to  keep  our 
schools  running,  so  as  to  prepare  these  newcomere 
for  the  duties  of  intelligent  citizenship. 

The  people  who  are  constantly  being  born  in 
this  country,  when  grown  to  wonianhoo-d  and  man- 
hood, also  compete  with  other  laborers  and  in- 
crease the  supply  of  workers,  and,  if  the  country 
were  stationary,  would  t«nd  to  cheapen  wages  as 
much  as  the  immigrants  would.  If  you  were  to 
consult  one  Malthus,  who  has  written  a  book  on 
the  dangerous  increase  of  the  humai.  race,  he 
would  tell  you  that  the  arrival  of  these  enormous 
numbers  should  also  In  some  way  be  checked. 
What  says  our  correspondent  to  such  a  proposition 
as  that?  Because  these  constantly  increasing 
new-born  citizens  supply  the  demand  for  !al)or 
Tvould  hardly  be  given  as  an  argument  in  favor  of 
any  special  view  of  the  tariff  question,  unless  it 
was  that  the  tariff  should  be  maintained.  Whether 
anything  should  be  done  to  lessen  the  natural  in- 
crease of  the  human  race  is  a  question  that  should 
be  considered  by  itself.  Mr.  Malthus  takes  one 
side  of  that  question  and  Henry  George  the  other 
side,  but  neither  of  them  claims  for  a  moment 
-that  the  question  has  any  bearing  on  the  theories 
of  protection  or  free  trade. 

Tlie  problem  that  every  one  of  our  statesmen 
'who  makes  any  pretensions  to  a  knowledge  of 
political  economy  should  strive  to  solve  is  this : 
How  best  to  provide  for  all  our  people  as  he  iinds 
them  here,  without  asldng  where  they  came  from, 
how  they  got  here  or  how  long  they  have  been  on 
the  ground. 

I  am  not  sure  but  the  time  is  near  at  hand  when 
we  ought  to  take  up  this  question  of  immigration 
in  dead  earnest  and  decide  it.  The  Eepublican 
party  has  been  legislating  in  that  direction  for 
several  years.  Laws  have  been  passed  restricting 
Chinese  immigration,  preventing  the  larding  of 
criminals  and  paupers  on  our  shores,  and  also  to 
stop  the  bringing  of  laborers  here  from  abroad 
under  the  contract  system.  The  writer  of  this 
article  voted  for  each  of  those  measures  and  be- 
lieves in  their  wisdom  now.  Whether  we  should 
not  also,  at  the  present  moment,  put  some  re- 
strictions upon  the  tlirongs  of  ignorant  people  that 
are  daily  reaching  this  country,  lowerin"g  the 
standard  of  intelligence  and  morality  in  our  large 
cities,  and  taking  the  place  of  so  many  of  our  own 
citizens  in  shops  and  factories,  in  the  mines-  and 
upon  our  farms,  is  a  very  grave  question ;  but  it 
should  be  examined  and  settled  by  it;elf. 

What  I  protest  against  is  this  constant  effort  to 
attach  it  to  a  debate  on  the  tariff,  as  if  it  could 
be  settled  in  a  discussion  of  that  question,  where- 
as it  should  be  met  and  determined  on  great  prin- 
ciples of  public  policy,  and  can  only  affect  the 
question  of  tariff  legislation  by  making  the  de- 


mands for  protection  all  the  more  imperative. 

My  experiance  is  that  no  free-trade  deljater 
who  mentions  this  matter  of  immigration  ever 
has  the  courage  to  state  where  he 
stands  himself  on  that  subject.  Never  does 
he  dare  to  intimate  that  he  is  in  favor 
of  preventing  or  even  restricting  it.  But  he  is 
constantly  asking  why  Protectionists  do  not  do  it. 
My  answer  is  this :  "  If  j'ou,  .Mr.  Fi-ee  Trader, 
think  that  immigration  is  a  bad  thing  for  our 
country,  why  do  you  not  say  so  ?  Why  do  you 
not  take  hold  of  the  question  yourself,  and  try  and 
put  a  stop  to  the  evil  ?  It  will  never  be  decided 
by  innuendo  or  by  any  attempt  to  hitch  it  to  the 
tail  of  your  free-trade  kite." 

Protectionists  are  not  called  upon  to  take  side's 
upon  this  question,  as  Protectionists,  at  present; 
because  their  problem  is  to  deal  with  the  great 
questions  of  wages,  markets,  home  industries,  the 
products  of  shops,  mines  and  farms,  and  they 
need  only  to  take  into  account  the  people  as  they 
find  them.  Tlieir  aim  is  to  adopt  that  system 
which  will  be  most  beneficial  to  all  the  people  of 
the  United  States  without  regard  to  where  they 
were  born  or  how  long  they  have  resided  in  our 
Republic.  So  long  as  these  people  are  here  with 
us  and  are  of  us,  our  duty  is  to  make  the  best 
possible  provision  for  their  well  being.  Nothing 
would  please  me  more  than  to  see  the  Democratic 
Free  Traders  of  the  United  States  set  their  faces 
against  this  influx  of  foreign  labor  and  foreign 
voters.  They  can  get  plenty  of  help  in  such  an 
undertaking. 

From  this  time  on  for  the  next  ten  years  there 
will  be  so  many  children  born  in  the  United  States 
that  our  increase  in  population  will  be  fully  one 
and  a  quarter  milUons  of  people  each  year  with- 
out counting  a  single  immigrant.  Is  not  that  as 
fast  as  we  ought  to  grow  ?  Will  it  not  tax  all  our 
energies  to  provide  well  for  ourselves  and  our 
own  children?  What  answer  will  our  free-trade 
friends  make  to  these  questions  ?  Come,  gentle- 
men, speak  up  and  let  us  know  where  .you  stand. 
We  know  what  you  are  trying  to  do  as  to  the 
tariff.  Your  aim  to  break  down  the  American 
system  of  protection  is  well  understood.  You 
work  for  that  purpose  early  and  late,  in  season 
and  out  of  season,  with  means  that  are  fair  or 
foul,  it  makes  little  difterence  to  you  which.  At 
the  same  time,  you  are  constantly  wondering  why 
Protectionists  do  not  stop  this  incessant  flow  of 
cheap  labor  into  our  country.  Yet  there  is  not  a 
single  soul  among  you  all  who  will  tell  us  squarely 
where  he  stands  upon  that  same  question.  Let 
me  ask  our  correspondent :  "  Do  you  know  the 
position  of  a  single  Democratic  Free  Trader  in  the 
entire  United  States  on  that  subject?  Can  you 
in  any  way  learn  where  any  of  them  do  stand  on 
the  simple  separate  question  of  checking  or 
stopping  immigration?"  If  you  can  find  out  and 
will  let  The  Tribune  know,  we  will  do  our  best 
to  spread  the  infoimation.  They  seein  alwaj'S  so 
anxious  to  have  us  Protectionists  stop  this  tide  of 
foreign  labor,  that  they  really  must  have  some 
notion  about  what  ought  to  be  done.  If  you  can 
learn  what  that  notion  is  and  are  at  liberty  to 
use  your  knowlpdge,  please  let  us  know,  too.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  tell  you  just  how  anxious  we 
are  to  find  out,  and  that  anxiety  is  increased  by 
the  fact  that,  so  far,  all  our  efforts  to  ascertain 
the  real  opinion  of  a  single  one  of  these  gentle- 
men, upon  a  question  that  always  seems  to  be 
present  with  them  have  been  flat  failures. 

R.  G.  HORR. 


^MW 


%K 


A^ 


^^^ 

i-ii-> 


■^Al 


0*^; 


'^^C^^/^fll^^0f^ 


y,Anrif»m^/im 


l^|^^g|:^p;gy;; 


«^(^ccvee..* 


"iA/^f*'^/^^'^"' 


:/^^m 


v/^A/^.^M/ 


iii^no^A^^ 


^wfl^^ 


vOAAAA^A/^^-mfl^^^^i 


'''a/-\AA-aAaaA-A 


.^O^AAAaaA^ 


